Draft Environmental Assessment Feather River Allotmenta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · mosses belonging to the genus Meessia, and (3) sundew (Drosera spp.)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Draft EA Feather River Allotment Page 1 of 81 May 28, 2014

Draft Environmental Assessment

Feather River Allotment

Livestock Grazing Management Project

USDA Forest Service, Lassen National Forest

Almanor Ranger District

Plumas County, California

May 28, 2014

Feather River Allotment is within Township 29 North, Range 5 East, Sections: 1-4, 9-15, 22-24, and Township 29

North, Range 6 East, Sections: 4-9, 16-22, 27-30, Mount Diablo Meridian.

Where scoping comments and Interdisciplinary Team discussion indicated that portions or elements of the actions

proposed needed to be clarified or changed, notable modifications to the original Proposed Action are written in

italics. Scoping responses, comments and discussion also resulted in an additional alternative. This alternative is

similar to the Proposed Action but with a lower stocking level and permit authorization differences. The rationale

for the development of alternative 4 considers that a more specific grazing system may be needed for the allotment in

regards to recreation areas / adjacent ownerships (than what was developed for alternatives 1 or 3).

Introduction

The Forest Service is proposing to revise the Allotment Management Plan for the Feather River Allotment on 13,310

acres. These actions are proposed to be implemented on the Almanor Ranger District of the Lassen National Forest.

The Feather River Allotment is located in the Almanor Ranger District, in Plumas County north of Chester,

California. The allotment is approximately 14,895 total acres, of which 1,585 acres are privately owned. The

Forest Service administers 13,310 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands on the allotment. Several creeks and

intermittent streams are located within the allotment including Willow Creek and Domingo Creek. All are tributary

to the North Fork of the Feather River, in the Upper North Fork of Feather River Watershed. The Term Grazing

Permit for the Feather River Allotment was signed in 2009 and the livestock grazing management system used by

the permittee includes the use of private lands, fencing, and herding. This project would take place within the

capable and suitable rangelands of the Feather River Allotment. The project area is identified on the attached map

(Map 1).

The Forest Service administers Feather River Allotment with a “Term Grazing Permit with On-and-Off Provisions”

(“on-off” permit) where a logical grazing area contains both National Forest System lands and lands owned or

controlled by the permittee. On-off portions are shown in percentages and are based on capacity. Authority and

responsibility to administer livestock grazing activities on "off" (non-NFS) lands is not waived to the Forest Service

but the Forest Service specifies overall season of use, numbers, and grazing area of combined "on" and "off" lands.

Although some area has been discontinued, grazing use of available private lands below the Willow Lake fence is

continuing and the surrounding NFS lands in the drainage comprise the Willow Creek On/Off grazing area.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Past management of the Feather River Allotment included other private lands in the Willow Creek and Warner

Valley areas which are no longer available. The Willow Lake fence (Map 2) was reconstructed in 2010 and the

stocking rate was also adjusted (approximately 50 percent of permitted numbers) the last few years. Issues identified

through scoping suggested the possible need for additional design criteria regarding season of use and closed or

restricted use areas, and the need to resolve identified management concerns.

Management activities were developed to implement and be consistent with the Lassen National Forest (LNF) Land

and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (1993), as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

(SNFPA) Records of Decision (ROD) (2004). The proposed action has been determined to be in conformance with

this plan as required by regulations at 36 CFR 222.1 et. seq.

Document Structure

The Forest Service has prepared this environmental assessment in compliance with the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This environmental assessment

discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and

alternatives.

Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose of this project is to conduct livestock management activities in a manner that moves the allotment

towards meeting Forest Plan objectives and desired conditions (as modified through amendments and agency

directives). There is a need to assess grazing on the Feather River Allotment because:

Where consistent with other multiple use goals and objectives there is Congressional intent to allow grazing

on suitable lands.

The allotment contains lands identified as capable and suitable for domestic livestock grazing in the LRMP

and continued domestic livestock grazing is consistent with the goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines

of the forest plan.

It is Forest Service policy to make forage available to qualified livestock operators from lands suitable for

grazing consistent with land management plans.

It is Forest Service policy to continue contributions 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.

The LRMP, which directs the management of lands contained within this project area, includes the following

goal: Provide for long-term rangeland productivity for fisheries, wildlife, soil, water, timber, and livestock

forage values.

Under the terms of Section 504(a) of the 1995 Rescissions Act, Public Law 104-19 (July 27, 1995), a schedule for

completion of Allotment Management Plans, including National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis has

been developed. Development of the schedule was initiated by the Chief of the Forest Service on October 4, 1995.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


The schedule was submitted to Congress on February 8, 1996 and published on March 7, 1996. The allotment is

included on the Lassen National Forest NEPA Schedule which is based on the 1996 schedule.

No site-specific NEPA analysis had been completed on the Feather River Allotment. The Recessions Act schedule

(pp. Region 5-28) listed a completion date of 1999.

Desired and Existing Conditions and Need for Action: Elements of an allotment management plan have been

implemented through past Annual Operating Instructions and permit reissuance procedures for the Feather River

Allotment. Livestock management has been adjusted and most areas within the allotment have been shown to be

meeting or moving toward desired conditions. Improved situations in other areas within the allotment could be

contingent on changes in grazing intensity and some seasonal restrictions.

There is a need to maintain or move existing rangeland conditions within the allotment toward desired conditions as

described in the LRMP, and to develop Allotment Management Plans (AMPs), issue Term Grazing permits and

Annual Operating Instructions in compliance with FSH 2209.13, Chapter 90.

Some of the most applicable management direction for meeting desired condition on the allotment is contained in

SNFPA 2004 ROD, in the Aquatic Conservation Strategy and in specific grazing standards. The grazing standards

and guides that would be applied towards meeting the objectives are primarily associated with SNFPA Riparian

Conservation Objectives (RCOs) including goals and objectives associated with RCO2, RCO5 and standards and

guides #117 and #119, as well as other resource objectives shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Management Objectives / Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs)

LRMP or SNFPA Source

Objectives/ Standards and Guidelines

SNFPA 2004 ROD 33-34

RCO #2. Maintain or restore: (1) the geomorphic and biological characteristics of special

aquatic features, including lakes, meadows, bogs, fens, wetlands, vernal pools, springs; (2) streams, including in stream flows; and (3) hydrologic connectivity both within and between watersheds to provide for the habitat needs of aquatic-dependent species.(RCO #2 is linked to the AMS Goals: #2,3,4,5,6 8,9).

RCO #5. Preserve, restore, or enhance special aquatic features, such as meadows, lakes,

ponds, bogs, fens, and wetlands, to provide the ecological conditions and processes needed to recover or enhance the viability of species that rely on these areas. (RCO #5 is linked to the AMS goals: #1,2,3,4,7,9)

ROD Appendix A, Part D, p. 65

#117. Assess the hydrologic function of meadow habitats and other special aquatic features

during range management analysis. Ensure that characteristics of special features are, at a minimum, at Proper Functioning Condition, as defined in the appropriate Technical Reports (or their successor publications): (1) “Process for Assessing PFC” TR 1737-9 (1993), “PFC for Lotic Areas” USDI TR 1737-15 (1998) or (2) “PFC for Lentic Riparian-Wetland Areas” USDI TR 1737-11 (1994).


#118. Prohibit or mitigate ground-disturbing activities that adversely affect hydrologic

processes that maintain water flow, water quality, or water temperature critical to sustaining bog and fen ecosystems and plant species that depend on these ecosystems. During project analysis, survey, map, and develop measures to protect bogs and fens from such activities as trampling by livestock, pack stock, humans, and wheeled vehicles. Criteria for defining bogs and fens include, but are not limited to, presence of: (1) sphagnum moss (Spagnum spp.), (2) mosses belonging to the genus Meessia, and (3) sundew (Drosera spp.) Complete initial plant inventories of bogs and fens within active grazing allotments prior to re-issuing permits.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


ROD Appendix A, Part D, p. 65 Designated Areas (RCAs and CARs)

#119. Locate new facilities for gathering livestock and pack stock outside of meadows and

riparian conservation areas. During project-level planning, evaluate and consider relocating existing livestock facilities outside of meadows and riparian areas. Prior to re-issuing grazing permits, assess the compatibility of livestock management facilities located in riparian conservation areas with riparian conservation objectives.

SNFPA ROD Appendix A, Part D, p. 65 - Designated Areas (RCAs and CARs)

#120. Under season-long grazing:

For meadows in early seral status: limit livestock utilization of grass and grass-like plants to 30 percent (or minimum 6-inch stubble height). For meadows in late seral status: limit livestock utilization of grass and grass-like plants to a maximum of 40 percent (or minimum 4-inch stubble height). Determine ecological status on all key areas monitored for grazing utilization prior to establishing utilization levels. Use Regional ecological scorecards and range plant list in regional range handbooks to determine ecological status. Analyze meadow ecological status every 3 to 5 years. If meadow ecological status is determined to be moving in a downward trend, modify or suspend grazing. Include ecological status data in a spatially explicit Geographical Information System database. Under intensive grazing systems (such as rest-rotation and deferred rotation) where meadows are receiving a period of rest, utilization levels can be higher than the levels described above if the meadow is maintained in late seral status and meadow-associated species are not being impacted. Degraded meadows (such as those in early seral status with greater than 10 percent of the meadow area in bare soil and active erosion) require total rest from grazing until they have recovered and have moved to mid- or late seral status.


#121. Limit browsing to no more than 20 percent of the annual leader growth of mature riparian

shrubs and no more than 20 percent of individual seedlings. Remove livestock from any area of an allotment when browsing indicates a change in livestock preference from grazing herbaceous vegetation to browsing woody riparian vegetation.

Other S&Gs for Recreation (LRMP)

Manage livestock, forage utilization, and range improvements to compliment recreational experiences; Prevent livestock concentration around developed recreation areas; Install natural appearing fences and cattleguards at entrances to development level 3 and 4 campgrounds, day use sites, and lakefront developed sites where needed to exclude cattle.

Site-specific analysis indicates that the allotment is capable of supporting viable commercial livestock grazing, but

there is a need to implement an adaptive management system to move toward and maintain desired conditions. The

proposed adaptive management system consists of defining forage utilization standards, monitoring resource

conditions, and adapting management activities based on the results of monitoring. The proposed adaptive

management system provides a list of possible management actions, such as adjusting livestock numbers or timing

and duration of grazing, to respond to needs identified by monitoring.

The existing and desired conditions are described below:

Manage livestock within the Feather River Allotment according to a planned management system,

while providing for off-portion (private land) grazing in the Willow Creek drainage.

Desired Condition / Situation: Grazing occurs within suitable areas and the grazing system is for livestock

management to be based out of the Willow Creek drainage where the herd would be distributed at the start of

the season for approximately two to three months depending on conditions. The allotment area outside of

Willow and lower Domingo Creek drainages would be recognized as a potential drift zone with trailing and

some grazing use allowed. In dry years/difficult management situations, a drought plan system would be

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


implemented (as described in the Proposed Action section of this document). The LRMP standard used to

assess the management category recommended for the area is “B” (Some Livestock).

Current Situation: The allotment was determined to be suitable for commercial livestock grazing under

Strategy C during the planning and analysis for the Forest Plan in 1993 (where: Strategy A= No Livestock,

B=Some Livestock, C=Extensive Management, and D=Intensive Management). Site-specific analysis

indicates that the allotment is capable of supporting commercial livestock grazing on 620 acres (or 4 percent

of the total allotment area) which are considered capable.

Total use the past few years has averaged 48 cow/calf pairs each year within an average period of 137 days

(4.6 months) of which approximately three months has been in the Willow Creek drainage surrounding the

private (off) lands. The current grazing authorization does not preclude the use of other specific areas within

the allotment, although use of some areas has been discontinued in normal operations and some areas have

been fenced. There is no primary range on NFS lands in Warner Valley.

Secondary range (2,815 acres) is generally not used except

possibly for trailing, as well as some other areas within the

allotment. When adjusted for the current situation, 468

acres (or 75 percent) of the allotment’s capable acres are

primary range acres estimated to be suitable for grazing

domestic livestock.

Need for Change from Current Management: An updated

allotment strategy, authorization criteria, management

requirements, and set of terms and conditions is needed to

address the current situation and adjusted suitable range

estimate, to minimize risk of livestock drift to other areas of

concern as well as areas adjacent to private/ other

ownership areas including Warner Valley, Lassen Volcanic

National Park or other adjacent private areas. They are also needed to incorporate additional flexibility

through adaptive management in order to allow the Forest Service and individual grazing permit holders to

adapt management to changing resource conditions or management objectives.

Identify and apply site specific utilization standards that will contribute towards satisfactory condition

of meadow vegetation.

Desired Condition: The desired ecological status of meadow vegetation is late seral (where 50 percent or

more of the relative cover of the herbaceous layer is late seral with high similarity to the potential natural

community) and a diversity of age classes of hardwood shrubs is present and regeneration is occurring. This

equates to meadows in high seral or high similarity to Potential Natural Community (PNC) with stable or

upward trends, and meadows are in or moving toward high ecological condition represented by at least two

out of three of the following conditions: greater than 50 percent relative frequency of plant species in the

high functional group; greater than 22 centimeters rooting depth; less than 5 percent bare soil.

Capable Rangeland - The potential of an

area of land to produce resources, supply goods and services and allow resource uses under an assumed set of management practices and at given levels of management intensity. Capability depends on current conditions and site conditions such as climate, slope, landform, soils, and geology, as well as the application of management practices Suitable Rangeland - Considers the

appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices to a particular area of land as determined by an analysis of the economic and environmental consequences and alternative uses foregone

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Current Condition: Key areas (benchmarks) where observations and studies are made are located within

primary range areas and include (map reference KA26#): Middle Willow Creek (b) and Lower Willow

Creek (c). Other areas include Upper Willow Creek (a), Buzzard Meadows (d), Domingo Springs (e), and

East of Stump Ranch (f). Permanent condition and trend studies have been initiated at two sites (c and d as

well as an older study at f). Key area locations are shown on Map 3.

The benchmarks are considered representative of the rangeland that would be sensitive to changes in

rangeland management, livestock management and/or wildlife management. Data extracted from these areas

would be considered indicative of the management of the areas represented.

Studies at Willow Creek indicate the area to be at PNC, but studies at Buzzard meadow in 2003 and 2008

indicate low ecological status although this area appeared to have stable overall 5 year trends. Since

moderate or higher functional status (mid to late seral) is considered to be satisfactory condition, the

condition of the Buzzard meadows area would be considered less than satisfactory. Short term monitoring

has indicated the key areas have generally had acceptable levels of forage utilization and apparent condition

and trend of other areas appear stable.

Need for Change from Current Management: There is a need to maintain at least satisfactory conditions in

the Willow Creek and other areas, and bring the Buzzard meadow area up to moderate or higher ecological

status. The Description of Management, Allowable Use Standards, and Monitoring and Evaluation actions

described in the Proposed Action respond to this need.

Protect Special Aquatic Habitats:

Desired Condition: The desired condition is that distribution and health of biotic communities in special

aquatic habitats (such as springs, seeps, fens, and marshes) perpetuates their unique functions and biological

diversity. Site specific direction is identified in allotment management plans and annual operating plans.

Current Condition: This direction would apply to the Willow Lake area within the allotment as well as other

areas including Domingo Lake fen and Domingo Springs. In 2010, a permanent drift fence was relocated

south of Willow Lake Campground to prevent livestock from accessing the Willow Lake area including the

Special Interest Area and fen. Domingo Lake has not been a main use area in the past but occasional drift

has been known to occur.

The large spring area at Domingo Springs is near a campground and there are other dispersed camping areas

in the allotment. Some fencing has been in place but the spring and stream area generally remain open.

These areas have occasionally been impacted by drifting cattle and additional fencing is likely unfeasible

due to the layout of the campground and roads. Aquatic habitat of concern is present in the upper Warner

Creek watershed, some of which is located near a small portion of the allotment boundary along the eastern

edge of Feather River Allotment. Fencing is not likely feasible in this area due to the location of the forest

boundary in relation to the stream corridor.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Need for Change from Current Management: There is a need to minimize concentration of cattle in these

areas. The Description of Management, Areas Closed to Grazing, Integrated Design Features, Adaptive

management Approach/Options and Range Improvement actions respond to this purpose and need.

Maintain Hydrologic Function:

Desired Condition: The desired condition for lotic streams (alluvial tributaries to North Fork Feather River)

and lentic riparian-wetland areas is to meet streambank disturbance standards (20 percent), and for

hydrologic function and meadow habitat characteristics to be, at a minimum, in Proper Functioning

Condition (PFC). Riparian areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation, landform, or large

woody debris is present to dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows.

The desired condition is that these areas are hydrologically functional. Sites of accelerated erosion, such as

gullies and headcuts are stabilized or recovering and vegetation roots occur throughout the available soil

profile. Meadows with perennial and intermittent streams have characteristics including: (1) stream energy

from high flows is dissipated, reducing erosion and improving water quality, (2) streams filter sediment and

capture bedload, aiding floodplain development, (3) meadow conditions enhance floodwater retention and

groundwater recharge, and (4) root masses stabilize stream banks against cutting action.

Current Condition: Some watershed work was completed in the 1980s after past flooding of Domingo and

Willow Creek, including installation of stream structures and temporary fence. The response of vegetation

in the surrounding area has been favorable. Studies at the Lower Willow Creek key area (c) Greenline plot

LAS0302 indicate satisfactory conditions (high ecological status). Some isolated areas along Willow Creek

could be at risk should future flooding as well as areas adjacent to private pasture, of which some drainages

exhibit past instability. The Feather River area adjacent to Stump Ranch as well as lower Domingo Creek

may also have continuing concern should future flooding occur. Drainages near the Buzzard meadows area

may be at risk (low ecological status).

Need for Change from Current Management: There is a need to apply a grazing system that ensures Willow

Creek and other areas remain in proper functioning condition. The Description of Management and

Adaptive Management Approach/Options respond to this purpose and need, including continued monitoring

of areas with previous needs (temporary stream structure or fence locations).

Promote Desired Habitat Conditions:

Desired Condition: The desired condition for habitats including aspen and willow communities includes

diverse age structure, late successional communities, regeneration, openings, snags and down woody debris;

vigorous and diverse native grass and forb understories. The species composition and structural diversity of

plant and animal communities in riparian areas, wetlands, and meadows provide desired habitat conditions

and ecological functions.

Current Condition: Aspen regeneration at the middle Willow Creek key area (b) has been favorable the last

few years; however, some aspen areas within the allotment may be at risk from being encroached and

overtopped by conifer. Additive effects are caused from browsing by both cattle and deer.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Studies at the Lower Willow Creek key area (c) Greenline plot LAS0302 indicated favorable conditions for

willows as the area was at Potential Natural Community in 2003 and 2008. Photos from Condition & Trend

(CT) monitoring which has taken place since the 1950s also generally indicate stable willow conditions in

this area.

Photos from CT monitoring plots established at Buzzard Meadows (d), and an upland area east of Stump

Ranch (f) indicate a general decrease in meadow openings within the allotment and an increase in lodgepole

in these areas. The East Stump Ranch site has been altered through road (and ditch) building but willow

conditions generally appear to be stable. The upper Buzzard meadows area appears to lack willow

vegetation but seasonal water availability may be a limiting factor.

Need for Change from Current Management: The grazing system objective is to apply updated management

criteria and adaptive management options should willow or aspen areas require exclusion from grazing to

release to an adequate size. The Description of Management, Allowable Use Standards, Adaptive

Management Approach/Options, and Monitoring and Evaluation actions respond to this purpose and need.

Promote Recreation Experiences and Minimize Risk of Livestock Drift to Private/ Other Adjacent

Ownerships:

Desired Condition / Situation: Livestock grazing in the allotment is authorized in a manner that addresses

the “the multiple use” aspect of National Forest System lands as identified in the Forest Plan, and most

recreation experiences would not be greatly diminished by the presence of commercial livestock in the

authorized area.

Current Situation: Recreationists in the Feather River Allotment area may notice cattle on the roadways and

campers may encounter cows or cow manure in camp areas grounds. Recreation residence owners may also

encounter trailing cattle in the area of their permitted lots. Livestock grazing may be in the vicinity of

campground and resident water supplies or use areas.

Need for Change from Current Management: As described above, an updated allotment strategy,

authorization criteria, management requirements, and set of terms and conditions is needed to address the

current situation and adjusted suitable range estimate, to minimize risk of livestock drift to other areas of

concern as well as areas adjacent to private/ other ownership areas including Warner Valley, Lassen

Volcanic National Park or other adjacent private areas. .

Following is a comparison of the desired situations or conditions, existing conditions, the need for action and some

possible adaptive management options within the scope of this analysis.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Table 2. Existing and desired conditions, need for action, possible adaptive management (applicable) options

Attribute Desired Condition (DC) or Situation

Pasture Benchmark and map reference

Existing Situation, Condition and Trend based on current monitoring

Need for Action, Possible Adaptive Management Options

Manage livestock according to a Planned Management System. Minimize risk of drift to areas of concern

Feather River Allotment capable rangelands (primary range comprised of meadows and riparian stringers surrounded by a mixed conifer forest on moderately uneven terrain)

Total use in adjusted capable areas the past few years has averaged approximately three months. Some capable areas in close proximity to other areas of concern Risk of drift to these areas a continuing concern

Limit grazing use in areas of concern to the adjusted suitable range. Control livestock drift with riding and herding Improved situations in some areas within the allotment could be contingent on changes in grazing intensity and some seasonal restrictions

Meadow Condition in moderate or higher functional status (mid to late seral)

Lower Willow Cr. (c) Other Areas: Buzzard (d) E. Stump Ranch (f) Domingo (e)

Willow Creek at Potential Natural Community, conditions meeting DC for green line communities Buzzard area at low ecological status with stable 5 yr trend, generally not used under current management but may receive some drift. Apparent trends stable in other areas

Existing management satisfactory for Willow Creek area, possible need to implement drought plan in some years Adjust utilization standard for the Buzzard area, improve meadow to moderate or higher status

Unique functions and biological diversity of Special Aquatic Habitats are perpetuated

Upper Willow Cr. (a) Other areas: Domingo Lake Domingo Springs Warner Creek

Upper Willow Creek above fence no longer grazed, conditions stable or improving Domingo Lake not commonly grazed but not restricted from livestock Domingo Springs partially fenced Warner Creek adjacent to other ownerships

Existing management satisfactory, need to continue to protect Willow Lake with fencing/ maintenance Limit grazing use in all other areas, including Domingo Lake, control livestock drift with riding and herding, apply Areas Closed to Grazing

Hydrologic Function at a minimum, in Proper Functioning Condition (PFC)

Middle Willow Cr. (b) Other areas: Buzzard (d) Domingo (e) E. Stump Ranch (f) Lower Warner (g)

Previous projects included stream structures after past flooding, most area has recovered, greenline along stream in PNC. Isolated areas of Willow Cr. may be Functioning At Risk Other areas Buzzard upper drainage may be Functioning At Risk Other areas with overlapping uses may have combined factors contributing to conditions (dispersed camps near creeks, roads, etc.

Existing management could possibly be adjusted to include protection of isolated areas along Willow Creek Limit grazing use in other areas, control livestock drift with riding and herding, apply grazing adjustments to address conflicts with other resource uses

Satisfactory Habitat Conditions for species composition, structural diversity, ecological functions

Aspen and willow habitat within Willow Creek drainage Other areas: E. Stump Ranch (f) Buzzard (d)

Aspen in various stages of regeneration, Study #361 photos shows past increase but less recent. Some aspen stands may be at risk. Willow habitat just below and above Willow Lake has been closed to grazing by fencing. Willow Creek greenline at (c) at PNC indicated satisfactory willow habitat conditions, other areas stable

Continue Willow Lake fenced area, monitoring in Willow Creek area. Possible need to protect/ exclude some other areas with temporary fence, possible need to eliminate late season grazing near aspen or willow areas.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Recreation/ Private /Other Ownerships, Minimize risk of drift to private/ other ownerships

Feather River Allotment capable rangelands

Some capable areas in close proximity to recreation use areas, adjacent ownerships Risk of drift to these areas has been a continuing concern

Limit grazing use in areas adjacent to private / other ownerships, and to the adjusted suitable range. Control livestock drift with riding and herding, adjust management to address conflicts with other resource uses. Improved situations in some areas within the allotment could be contingent on changes in grazing intensity and some seasonal restrictions

Proposed Action (Alternative 1)

The Almanor Ranger District, Lassen National Forest proposes to continue authorized grazing in the Feather

River Allotment under an adaptive management system in order to progress towards meeting desired conditions

for rangeland vegetation condition, stream condition, and forage utilization described in the Lassen National

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The proposed adaptive management system would consist of

defining forage utilization standards, monitoring resource conditions, and adapting management activities based

on the results of monitoring.

The proposed action would revise the Allotment Management Plan (AMP) for the Feather River Allotment

which is a special management provision to the grazing permit. Monitoring information and adaptive

management options contained in the AMP would be used to cooperatively resolve any compliance or

management issues and support the permittee’s ability to self-monitor.

The proposed action would include:

Continued Livestock Authorization

The permit would be a variable grazing permit where numbers, type of livestock, (cow/calf, yearlings,

and dry cows) dates and times may be adjusted when authorized by a Forest Officer within a permitted

limit. Authorized use is in head months (HMs) which is the amount of time in months that an animal

spends on National Forest System lands and is the measurement used for billing purposes. The use is

also described in animal unit months (AUMs), which can be equated to the amount of forage required to

support a mature 1,000 lb. cow or its equivalent for 1 month. On-off portions are approximate and

shown in percentages based on capacity.

The permitted limit would be a maximum of 191 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) when using the 1.32 factor

per cow/calf unit (factored @ [30.416667 days/month factor] X [total number of adult animals]). This

equates to 35 calf pairs (head) or 191 AUMs on (74 percent), 12 head or 67 AUMs off (26 percent), for

a total of 48 head 258 AUMs on/off with a season of use from June 1 to September 30th.

In dry /or otherwise difficult management situations (drought plan), a shorter season would be

anticipated, as further described in the management practices section below.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Note: The initial proposed action stocking level equated to 48 head (35 head or 209 AUMs on, 12 head

or 71 AUMs off, or 48 head 280 AUMs total) with a season of use from June 1 to October 15.

Comments and review resulted in a recommendation that this season be adjusted to end no later than

September 30th, as an aid for managing streamside vegetation, willow, aspen, and cottonwood

regeneration as well as soil conditions in some wetter areas. Alternative 1 is modified to limit the

season of use from June 1 to September 30.

The acreage of NFS primary range within the Feather River Allotment, when adjusted for other than

suitable acres, is 468 acres. The permitted use would be within the estimated capacity of 348 AUM in

NFS lands within the adjusted primary range of the Feather River Allotment considered suitable.

Required Livestock Management Practices / Terms and Conditions

Continued livestock grazing authorization would incorporate the basic elements of an Allotment Management

Plan (AMP). The pertinent parts of an AMP include:

Management objectives in terms of the condition and trend of the rangeland resources (described in the Purpose

and Need Section of this document); required livestock management practices including allowable use levels,

other criteria, Integrated Design Features (IDFs) and other adaptive management approaches; structural or non-

structural improvements; and monitoring to determine if management objectives are being met or if adaptive

management alterations are needed. The proposed action also describes the adaptive management options which

may be applied within the scope and analysis of this alternative.

The AMP elements would be incorporated into the Term Grazing Permit and would be designed to move the

allotment towards desired conditions, support the permittee’s ability to comply with permit terms and conditions,

and cooperatively resolve any management issues needing resolution.

Grazing System and Description of Management: The proposed grazing system and description of

management would follow an approximate schedule listed in the Allotment Management Plan. The Feather

River Allotment would be grazed in conjunction with the private Willow Creek W.M. Beaty and Associates,

Inc. permit (400 acres) which would continue to constitute the off portion of the permit.

The cattle would start out in the private lands (Beaty) in the Willow Creek drainage in early June where they

generally stay for about two to three months. As conditions become drier, or occasionally for reasons not

always apparent, they work their way down and distribute along the middle and lower Willow Creek

drainage and into the lower allotment area. Riding, herding, and salting are generally necessary to prevent

livestock from congregating near campgrounds and other potential drift areas outside of Willow Creek.

Livestock would be removed from the allotment no later than September 30, or when maximum annual

authorized allowable standards are met in the Willow Creek drainage or to comply with closed/limited use

areas (see areas closed to grazing section below). Annual variations would be described in the Annual

Operating Instructions (AOI).

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Drought Plan: The livestock grazing season would be shortened and cattle would be removed from the

allotment within three months depending on conditions. The dry year/difficult management (drought plan)

system would be a maximum of 48 head with a season of use from June 1 to August 30. This equates to 35

head or 140 AUMs on (74 percent), 12 head or 48 AUMs off (26 percent), for a total of 48 head 188 AUMs

on/off with a season of use from June 1 to August 30th.

If monitoring shows that the Forest Plan desired conditions are not being met, then the Forest Service could

implement various options from the proposed Adaptive Grazing Management Options within the scope of

this project to adjust management to move conditions toward Forest Plan desired conditions.

Forest Plan Allotment Management Strategy: The proposed action includes a clarification to Management

Area #28 (Feather River) as further described in the purpose and need section. To address the limited use of

fencing and other changes in circumstances on the Feather River Allotment, the forest plan allotment

management strategy would be recommended to be changed from “C” (Extensive Management) to “B”

(Some Livestock) where: Structural and non-structural range improvements are minimized and vegetative

management objectives are achieved through riding, herding, and salting. This alternative, if selected, would

include an amendment to the Forest Plan to modify the LRMP allotment management strategy.

The proposed Allotment Management Plan and Term Grazing permit would address the authorization

criteria described above as well as design criteria and adaptive measures that would be applied to

management activities. The continued authorization would contain the following terms:

Allowable Use Standards and Key Areas

Resource objectives would be applied to the main areas of primary and secondary National Forest

System (NFS) rangelands within the allotment. Key areas (benchmarks) where observations and studies

are made are considered representative of primary rangeland areas that would be sensitive to changes in

management. Data extracted from these areas would be considered indicative of the management of the

areas represented.

The key areas within Feather River Allotment include the

following (map reference KA26#): Middle Willow Creek

(b) and Lower Willow Creek (c), Upper Willow Creek (a),

Buzzard Meadows (d), Domingo Springs (e), and East of

Stump Ranch (f). Key area locations are shown on Map 3.

The proposed maximum annual authorized allowable

standards are:

Riparian meadows: Limit livestock utilization of grass and grass-like plants to a maximum of

40 percent.

Streamsides: Limit livestock utilization of grass and grass-like plants to a minimum 4-inch

stubble height (4 inches);

Primary Range – Rangelands within an

allotment which livestock naturally prefer to use, are productive, accessible, and have available water. Secondary Range - Rangelands that are

lightly used or unused by livestock under minimal management, and will ordinarily not be used until the primary range has been fully utilized.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Upland utilization: Allow 50 percent utilization of perennial rangeland vegetation (perennial

grasses and upland shrubs;

Riparian shrub annual growth: Limit browsing to no more than 20 percent of the annual leader

growth of mature riparian shrubs and no more than 20 percent of individual seedlings; and

Stream bank disturbance and required stability: Prevent (livestock) disturbance to streambanks

and natural lake and pond shorelines from exceeding 20 percent of stream reach or 20 percent of

natural lake and pond shorelines. Disturbance includes bank sloughing, chiseling, trampling, and

other means of exposing bare soil or cutting plant roots.

Site Specific:

Buzzard Meadows (d): This area is generally not used but may receive drift. Continue to limit

livestock use, adjust the utilization of grass and grass-like plants to 30 percent to allow condition

ratings to improve (from low to satisfactory).

Areas Closed to Grazing: limited to incidental use (less than 10 percent).

Other areas including Meadows East of Stump Ranch (e): Site specific standards will be

developed on an adaptive basis if changed circumstances (e.g. fencing) regarding the feasibility

of grazing these areas occurs.

Salt (or Mineral Supplement)

Salt (or mineral supplement) would be placed away from key areas, available water, and areas

with other resource concerns. Salt would not be placed closer than one-quarter mile to stream

channels or other special aquatic or heritage features without prior approval.

Salt would not be placed within one-quarter mile of forest regeneration or protection areas

(including aspen).

Site Specific:

Salt only at Willow Creek main pasture or as specified in the AOI.

Range Readiness

Livestock entry onto the allotment or into a specific pasture would be when soils are firm

enough in the general area so that livestock would not cause trampling damage to soil and

vegetation, and the phenological stage or growth of vegetation meets readiness standards for

selected indicator plants. Range readiness would be checked at key areas for monitoring

utilization.

For Feather River Allotment, range readiness criteria include: Nebraska sedge in full flower,

Kentucky bluegrass heads beginning to emerge, Buttercup flowers faded.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Site Specific:

Willow Lake road passable for trailing or as specified in the AOI.

Areas Closed to Grazing

Most of the allotment outside of the Willow Creek drainage has been noted to have capability and

suitability limitations. Several areas are fenced to exclude cattle and/or have limited grazing periods

proposed, as listed below:

Site Specific:

Upper Willow Lake (above Willow Lake fence FEFR3r) is closed to prevent entry into Willow

Lake Special Interest Area, Willow Lake Campground, and Lassen Volcanic National Park.

Domingo Springs Campground when open (approx. July 1 to September 5), and dispersed

camping areas near Domingo Springs.

Domingo Lake and spring area.

Warner Valley Campground when open, NFS areas along Warner Valley east of the rim

adjacent to other private and State ownership areas.

Other Areas in the lower allotment with potential for drift - Site specific standards and

adaptations (e.g. fencing) would be developed if changed circumstances, including the

feasibility of grazing these areas, occurs.

The strategy for closed or restricted areas is No Grazing by Management, as follows: The Permittee

will check for drift and move cattle back to the Willow Creek drainage, other private grazing areas,

or remove cattle from National Forest System lands. Since structural range improvements are

minimized and management objectives are achieved through riding, herding, and salting (Strategy

B), any cattle that potentially drift into these areas or outside of specified timeframes must be

removed within 72 hours of notification or as requested, utilization must remain under incidental

use standards, and permit suspension and cancellation standards will apply. Forest Service

personnel will monitor throughout the grazing season to identify if drift cattle are present in these

areas and if standards are being met. Site specific management will be developed on an adaptive

basis if monitoring or changed circumstances (e.g. fencing) occurs regarding these areas (See

Adaptive management Section).

Open Range Considerations: Plumas County is not considered open range although private lands

within the allotment boundary are generally considered open. The Forest Service’s policy, which is

described in Forest Service Manual, Section 2230.6 (Lands Not Under Jurisdiction of Forest

Service), states: The Forest Service “is not responsible for intrusion of permitted livestock upon

private lands nor the settlement of controversies between the owner of the livestock and the owner

of the land.” Outside of the allotment boundary, rangelands are considered closed to grazing and

livestock owners are responsible for keeping their cattle off private lands. Continued cooperation

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


and permit administration will be applied to resolve any problems or conflicts in the vicinity of the

Feather River Allotment boundary. The Forest Service may participate in discussions, meetings,

and/or field visits between private landowners and range permittees regarding these issues if

invited; however as stated above, the Forest Service is not responsible for the settlement of

controversies.

Key Area Allotment Moves, Distribution and Exit

Compliance with allowable use standards may require that cattle are moved or removed from

key areas or entire units before standards are exceeded. Livestock could enter the allotment as

early as June 1 and remain no later than September 30th as long as vegetation readiness, use

guidelines, and management criteria are not exceeded by the removal date.

The permittee will ride (horseback) the allotment as necessary to keep all cattle within the

designated grazing area.

Other: Other design features would be continued or incorporated into the AMP, Term Grazing Permit,

and Annual Operating Instructions for various purposes including travel management, fire restrictions,

disposal of dead livestock, and coordination for animal damage management. Compliance actions

would be according to R5 Grazing Permit Administration Suspension and Cancellation Guidelines.

Range Improvements

Fences within the allotment including Willow Lake fence (FEFR3r), and Willow Creek Restoration Exclosure

(FEFR1) as shown on Map 2 would continue to be assigned permittee maintenance responsibility. Fences no

longer used within Feather River Allotment would be discontinued and evaluated for removal.

New range improvements that are proposed include small exclosures at Domingo Lake Springs (pFEFR8) and

Mosquito Springs (pFEFR9). Other projects that may be considered could include drift fences, temporary fence

or other protection efforts to protect sensitive areas such as seeps and springs, willows, or other sensitive habitats

(also see adaptive management section).

Any new improvements would be part of an adaptive management system based on information derived from

monitoring indicating the need. The AMP would include criteria for planning new improvements, along with

maintenance standards and responsibility.

Monitoring and Evaluation

A description of short-term implementation monitoring, long-term effectiveness monitoring, as well as a

proposed schedule for the benchmark areas would be detailed in the AMP monitoring section. Each site has a

specified type of monitoring and visit interval. Methods that would be used are detailed in several regional

technical reference guides.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Key area/benchmarks (a-f) within the Feather River Allotment would continue to be monitored for desired

condition objectives. Permanent condition and trend studies have been initiated at two sites, Lower Willow

Creek (c) and Buzzard Meadows (d). Other Condition & Trend (CT) monitoring plots within the allotment may

also be monitored.

Implementation Monitoring: Implementation monitoring would measure whether or not design criteria are being

met. Monitoring areas established in the Willow Creek drainage and other areas as mentioned above would

continue to be inspected. This includes monitoring of cattle drift into closed or restricted areas. For the key

areas, and other areas as needed, if implementation monitoring shows that allowable use or other standards are

not being met, one or more of the adaptive management options would be implemented.

Long Term Condition and Trend Monitoring: Effectiveness monitoring would evaluate how successful

management actions are at moving toward or achieving desired conditions. The long term monitoring site (green

line) at the Willow Creek plot LAS0302 (Key area c) indicated Potential Natural Community (PNC) ratings in

2003 and in 2008 which would equate to high functional status. The rooted frequency plot LAS0303 established

at Buzzard Meadows (Key Area d) had low ratings in 2003 and in in 2008, indicating low ecological status and

vegetative condition, but stable overall 5 year trends. Moderate or higher functional status (at least 40 percent

relative cover of late seral plant species) is considered to be satisfactory condition.

With the exception of the Buzzard area, the ecological condition of Key areas within the allotment appear to be

in satisfactory condition and this will be verified through analysis of data from further trend studies. The plots

and other areas would continue to be evaluated as to whether livestock disturbance is hindering an upward trend.

Management would be further adjusted if monitoring determines livestock disturbance is preventing an upward

trend. If long term monitoring on benchmark sites indicates that desired condition objectives are not being met

or moved toward desired condition in a timely manner, one or more adaptive options would be implemented.

Annual Operating Instructions (AOI) and permit compliance are described in the AMP. The AOIs would detail

the current season’s management schedule, maintenance responsibilities, rangeland improvement program,

allowable use standards, key areas, and any adaptive management recommendations based on the previous

season(s) monitoring results. The AOI would become an amendment to the AMP and as such, a part of the Term

Grazing Permit. Reviews and changes to the AMP may also be completed.

Adaptive Grazing Management Options

Adaptive management is defined as a process where land managers implement management practices that are

designed to meet LRMP standards and guidelines, and would likely achieve the desired conditions in a timely

manner. However, if monitoring shows that desired conditions are not being met, or if movement toward

achieving the desired conditions in an acceptable timeframe is not occurring, then an alternate set of

management actions, as described and evaluated under this project would be implemented to achieve the desired

results. All adaptive actions would be within the scope of effects recorded in this analysis, or a supplemental

NEPA document and decision would be prepared as appropriate.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Following is a list of potential adaptive management options that can be applied as necessary to move conditions

toward the desired future conditions:

Existing and Adaptive Grazing Management Options

Make adjustments in salt/mineral supplement locations

Apply a herder to redistribute cattle on a regular basis

Fence, either temporary or long term, (pending required clearances)

Develop upland/alternative water sources (Willow Cr. or other sources) (pending required clearances)

Decrease season of use or time in pasture

Make adjustments in stocking intensity

Change the allowable percent utilization /stubble height

Resting areas from livestock grazing for one or more seasons

Adjust grazing to address conflicts with other resource uses

Closure of grazing areas within the allotment

Integrated Design Features

Integrated design features (IDFs) are elements of the project design that are developed to reduce or avoid

adverse environmental effects of the Proposed Action on forest resources. IDFs are incorporated in the

Proposed Action and are based upon and highlight aspects of management direction, standards and

guidelines, and best management practices.

The following is a summary of the integrated design features of Alternative 1 that would be incorporated in

the AMP to minimize the effects of the proposed activities.

Noxious Weed Prevention Practices

Noxious weed prevention practices as embodied in the following IDFs would be incorporated into the

AMP:

Known noxious weed infestations would be identified and mapped for the allotment. Identified

noxious weed sites within or adjacent to the allotment containing isolated patches with small

plant numbers would be evaluated and treated according to the species present and project

constraints.

Salt blocks and staging or gathering areas would be placed outside of known weed sites.

If project implementation calls for hay or other feed, straw, and/or mulch, it would be certified

weed-free. Seed mixes used for revegetation of disturbed sites would consist of locally adapted

native plant materials to the extent practicable.

Monitoring for implementation and effectiveness of weed treatments and control of new

infestations within the allotment would be conducted as soon as possible. If monitoring

indicated a need for change in management strategies to eradicate noxious weeds, the plan

(AMP) would be modified.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) Plant Species

The proposed permit would also address Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) plant species and

any Special Interest plant species:

Known occurrences of TES spp. would be monitored for impacts by livestock. Any new TES or

Special Interest occurrences discovered after project implementation would be monitored for

impacts from livestock. If monitoring indicates impacts to known or new TES or Special Interest

occurrences from livestock activities, then adjustments, including potential fencing, would be

made to alleviate the impacts.

Salt blocks and staging or gathering areas would be placed outside of known TES and Special

Interest occurrences.

Key areas would not be located within fens or sites with TES or Special Interest species.

Heritage Resources

The Lassen National Forest Grazing - Heritage Management Strategy provides management direction

for protecting heritage resources while allowing cattle grazing to continue within the boundaries of range

allotments. Historic properties within the allotment Area of Potential Effects (APE) would be protected

during implementation of any undertaking (i.e., rangeland projects, timber, fuels, road, recreation etc.)

through the use of Standard Resource Protection Measures (SRPM) as stipulated in the Regional

Programmatic Agreement (RPA), LNF Heritage-Grazing Strategy and district protocols. Adaptive

management strategies may be developed to protect heritage resources and resource sites. The SRPM’s

listed below would be applied:

The boundary of all historic properties (i.e., eligible or potentially eligible properties) within this

allotment would be defined on the ground with permanent metal tags. No range improvements

would be allowed within designated boundaries.

Historic properties located within the project APE but not in close proximity to identified

treatment areas would be protected from indirect project impacts such as use of sites for staging

equipment or vehicles or any other activities.

Forest Service project manager would be apprised of all site locations to ensure protection from

direct as well as indirect effects.

NRHP eligible properties damaged by cattle activities would be permanently fenced for

protection.

Potentially eligible properties damaged by cattle activities would be evaluated for National

Register eligibility and protected from further damage including using temporary fencing until

eligibility is determined.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Salting/mineral supplement would be used to draw cattle away from habitual congregations on

historic properties.

Historic properties would be monitored annually to determine any changes in site condition.

If heritage resources are identified during any rangeland activities (unanticipated discovery) all

work would cease immediately in that area until the situation is reviewed and an assessment and

mitigation plan instituted to ensure protection of the site.

Site Specific: Site Specific Information & Protection Measures are described in the Cultural

Resources Report

Recreation/Special Uses

The following measures would be applied:

Maintain exclusion fencing around Domingo Spring, and around the drainage through the

Domingo Springs Campground.

Keep Pacific Crest National Scenic trailheads and trail open and free of salt or mineral

supplements.

Keep all system roads, trails and trailheads open and free from range related operations

obstructions (corrals, loading/unloading sites), for public access and accessible to emergency

equipment at all times.

Site Specific: See Areas Closed to Grazing (campgrounds, other recreation/ residence areas)

Aspen

Aspen stands on the Feather River Allotment are in the process of being identified, and evaluated.

If monitoring indicates browsing on young trees and suckers exceeds 20 percent on terminal

stems, adaptive management strategies, potentially including but not limited to fencing, may be

applied to protect specific aspen resources.

Best Management Practices/Watershed/Soils

Soil quality standards and appropriate best management practices (BMP) that protect forest soils would

be implemented. Standards are described in the LNF LRMP, the Sierra Nevada Framework Plan

Amendment ROD (2004), and the USFS Region 5 Soil Management Supplement No. 2500-2012-1

(2012). BMPs are described in the USFS Region 5 Water Quality Management Handbook Amendment

No. 2509.22-2011-1 (2011). The soil and water BMPs applicable to rangeland management to protect

water sources and enhance water quality include BMP numbers 8.1 to 8.3:

PRACTICE: 8-1 Range Analysis and Planning: An allotment management plan will be

prepared to include measures to protect other resource values, such as water quality.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Implementation responsibilities include enforcement of grazing permit terms and conditions,

and monitoring for effectiveness. This includes meeting stream bank standards.

PRACTICE: 8-2 Grazing Permit System: The grazing permit is compliant with Forest standards

and guidelines for water quality. Administration of permits includes range readiness

evaluations, stock checks for authorized use, monitoring of utilization and disturbance standards.

This includes compliance with Allotment Management Plans and Annual Operating Instructions

PRACTICE: 8-3 Rangeland Improvements: Improvements are designed to improve use of

range vegetation and provide protection to sensitive areas. Improvements may include

watershed restoration projects. This could include placing temporary or permanent fence in

strategic locations.

Riparian Conservation Area (RCA) widths that would be applied include: Special Aquatic Features (wet

meadows, fens, springs), 300 feet; seasonally flowing streams, 150 feet; perennial Streams, 300 feet on

each side of the stream, measured from the bank full edge of the stream.

Hydrologic Function

Meadow habitat monitoring would be included in the AMP to ensure that characteristics and special

aquatic features are, at a minimum, in Proper Functioning Condition, as defined in the appropriate

Technical Reports: “Process for addressing PFC” TR 1737-9 (1993), “PFC for Lotic Areas” USDI TR

1737-15 (1998) or “PFC for Lentic riparian-wetland Areas” USDI TR 1737-11 (1994). Monitoring

would be completed as described in the AMP monitoring section.

Maintain meadows in properly functioning condition, defined as having adequate vegetation,

landform, or large woody debris present to dissipate stream energy associated with high water

flows.

Special Aquatic Features

The Grazing System and Description of Management and Range Improvement sections of this document

describe the management strategy that would be applied to protect these areas. The Existing and

Adaptive Grazing Management Option Section describes options that may also be applied to restore

and/or protect fens or other sensitive areas.

Site Specific:

The Willow Lake fence (FEFR3r) is incorporated into the permit with permittee maintenance

responsibility to prevent livestock from accessing Willow Lake Special Interest Area and fen.

Domingo Lake area would be closed to grazing and the spring area would be fenced (pFEFR7).

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Willow Flycatcher

The direction for meadows with occupied willow flycatcher sites is to allow only late-season grazing

(after August 15) in the entire meadow. This limited operating period may be waived if an

interdisciplinary team has developed a site-specific meadow management strategy in partnership with

the permittee. The strategy objectives must focus on protecting the nest site and associated habitat

during the breeding season and the long-term sustainability of suitable habitat at breeding sites. It may

use a mix of management tools, including grazing systems, structural improvements, and other exclusion

by management techniques to protect willow flycatcher habitat.

Site Specific/ Limited Operating Periods:

The site-specific meadow management strategy for the upper Willow Creek drainage is

continuing the closure of the area above the Willow Lake fence (FEFR3r) (also see Range

Improvements, Areas Closed to Grazing). Livestock trails in Willow Creek would also be

monitored, with adaptive measures applied to protect willow stands as needed.

Willow flycatcher habitat sites are identified on specialist report maps. The Willow Lake fence

project was completed in 2010 and willows both above and below the fence appear robust with

grazing use less than 20 percent. The Forest Service will monitor use of the willows and trails

in the area. Late season grazing, grazing after August 15th, will not be required as long as

willow use remains below 20 percent.

Decision Framework

Given the purpose and need, the deciding official reviews the proposed action and analysis in order to make

decisions including whether to implement the proposed action (alternative 1), an alternative developed in

response to issues raised during scoping (alternative 4), the no-action alternative (alternative 2), or continue

historic management (alternative 3). A decision to implement the no action alternative would discontinue

commercial livestock grazing in the allotment. A Forest Plan amendment would be needed to permanently

eliminate an allotment. Review of this EA and analysis for individual resources is intended to assist in those

decisions.

Proposed terms and conditions to the active permit would be implemented prior to the start of the next grazing

season.

Public Involvement

The Feather River Allotment Livestock Grazing Management proposal was listed on the Lassen National Forest

Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) starting in April, 2012, and has appeared in each quarterly publication of

the schedule since the initial listing. The SOPA is posted on the Forest website.

A notice about the project appeared in the Chester progressive on May 29, 2013, and a scoping letter was sent to

interested parties including local governmental agencies, conservation groups, cattle grazing association, and

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


private citizens. This letter asked for public comments on the proposal, to be received by June 12, 2013. Five

comment letters were received during the scoping period and one letter was submitted shortly after the close of

the scoping period.

The Almanor Ranger District received other public comments and follow up responses regarding authorized

grazing in the Feather River Allotment during the 2013 grazing season. These comments were not specifically

in response to the scoping announcement but reflected concerns over grazing on the Feather River Allotment.

The comments received were reviewed and are summarized in the Feather River Allotment project record

maintained at the Almanor Ranger District office.

Consultation To Date (State and Federal Agencies, Tribes, and Permittees)

Tribes: Consultation with Tribal governments and other officials of tribes with possible traditional ties to the

area or those tribes that indicated interests was also initiated on May 29, 2013. The Greenville Rancheria,

Mechoopda Tribe of Chico Rancheria, Susanville Indian Rancheria, Redding Rancheria, Maidu Summit

Consortium, and the Pit River Tribe were advised of the project on May 29, 2013. All consultation activities are

included in the project record.

Permittees: The permittee was involved in the development of the Feather River AMP and the planning process

for this project. All permittee involvement records are included in the project record.

Issues – An issue is a point of debate, dispute, or disagreement regarding anticipated effects of the proposed

action. The Forest Service separates issues into two groups: significant and non-significant issues. Significant

issues are defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action, and are considered

in terms of context and intensity. Non-significant issues were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the

proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant

to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “…identify and

eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior

environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)…”

A list of potential issues and reasons regarding their categorization may be found in the Disposition of

Comments in the project record. The following is a summary of identified concerns and description of how they

are addressed in the project integrated design features, alternative development, and/or environmental analysis

presented in the Effects Sections of relevant resources:

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Table 3. Identified Concerns from Public Involvement/Scoping

Topic Cause and Effect Disposition

Homesites /Cabins under Special Use Permit (Willow Cr., Feather River), Camp grounds, dispersed camps, other recreational use areas within the Feather River Allotment (NFS)

Livestock grazing and trailing in the lower allotment has been a concern for the homesites in the vicinity of Willow Creek and Feather River. Livestock use has also overlapped with recreational use areas in the Domingo Springs and Warner Valley Campground areas as well as other various dispersed camping areas.

Addressed as Issue 1 and considered in Alternative 1 and 4 development and IDFs, environmental consequences section

Adjacent ownerships, private lands or other ownerships outside of the Feather River Allotment boundary

Concern that livestock from the Feather River Allotment have drifted outside of the allotment boundary in the past. Problems have escalated in the Warner Valley area the last several years.

Outside the scope of the proposed action but addressed as Issue 1 and considered in Alternative 1 and 4 development, IDFs, environmental consequences and cumulative effects sections.

Economic consideration Various economic interests in the allotment area, private grazing permits (Beaty), consequences of authorizing or not in the allotment area.

Addressed as Issue 2, analyzed in the environmental consequences sections

Other Relevant Resources: including watersheds, biological resources (including Cascades frog, willow flycatcher), other habitat and resources within the allotment

Livestock watering areas in the Domingo Springs, Domingo Creek, Mosquito Springs, Willow Creek, Warner Creek, and Feather River areas have also been water sources for cabins and various dispersed camps in the allotment. Concerns for Cascades frog, Willow flycatcher habitat on NFS and adjacent ownerships (Warner Valley Wildlife area, LVNP, adjacent private areas).

Considered in Alternative 1 and 4 development, addressed as Relevant Resources and analyzed in the environmental consequences and cumulative effects sections

Two main concerns relevant to the implementation of the proposed action alternative were identified after

review of the scoping comments and comments received during the 2013 grazing season, as summarized below.

Issue 1: Continued grazing in the allotment may have a negative effect on the recreation experience for

some visitors and neighboring landowners.

Cattle distribution within the allotment has been determined to be an unresolved conflict due to the level of

public interest and the documented history of cattle entering recreational use areas or distributing to various

areas within the allotment boundary. Most visitors to the allotment and adjacent/ownership areas travel

through the Domingo and Warner Valley corridors and these are considered high-sensitivity travel routes.

There is concern that continued grazing activities on these National Forest System lands could have negative

effects on vegetation, water quality, noise, and recreation opportunities in the allotment and vicinity.

Recreation residences, campgrounds, dispersed camps, and trailheads within the allotment are mostly

unfenced and open to livestock. The use and occupancy authorized by permits for recreation residences are

not exclusive, and improvements (fences) could be considered for specific authorization for cabin owners

wishing to exclude livestock. Fences however, may conflict with scenic esthetic values of recreation use

areas, and recreation residence permit holders are required to protect these values to the greatest extent

possible during construction, operation, occupation, and maintenance of any authorized improvements.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Other private lands within the allotment include private timber company lands (Collins Pine) and other lands

near tributaries to Domingo Creek. Collins Pine parcels are not part of the authorization and are unfenced

and open to livestock, but are not known to be grazed. The Domingo private meadow area is fenced but

livestock pressure against the fence has been continuing, with concerns of cattle remaining along the fence

line adjacent to the paved road, breaking into private cabin/meadow areas. The associated water sources

(including Mosquito Springs ditch under Special Use Permit) have also been a concern for private

landowners and people utilizing the area for dispersed camping when cattle have been in the area.

Areas to the east of the allotment, outside the boundary, are not authorized for grazing and the LNF does not

administer these adjacent areas. These lands of other ownership include State lands which have cattle use

restrictions, and other private lands (Sierra Pacific Industries, open or partially fenced). As evidenced in

comment letters received from private landowners in this area, there is the potential for conflicts with cattle

drifting onto these private lands.

Due to open boundaries and the quantity and variety of recreational use areas within the allotment, it is not

feasible to install all the fencing and cattleguards that would be needed to completely exclude cattle from

these areas. Other existing fenced areas have experienced livestock pressure and livestock exclusions have

been difficult to maintain. The type and pattern of land ownership, in combination with changing patterns of

livestock distribution and forage availability, have resulted in cattle drift becoming an increasing source of

conflict.

Key indicators to analyze this concern: The stocking level on the allotment including the length of the

grazing season during which livestock may be present in the allotment and the frequency, timing, and

duration of LNF permitted cattle drifting onto the various areas of concern, compared to past records of how

many cattle were on the allotment any given year and the number of cattle that drifted in that year.

Issue addressed in alternative 1: Alternative 1 includes closed/limited use areas and applies a buffer to

the eastern allotment boundary along Warner Valley Rim.

Issue addressed in alternative 2: Alternative 2 would discontinue grazing in the allotment, eliminating

this issue.

Issue addressed in alternative 4: Alternative 4 proposes a lower stocking level and limits the grazing

system to minimize conflicts both within and adjacent to the allotment boundary.

Issue 2: Reductions in previously authorized livestock numbers and season can negatively impact

permittees, especially when substitute sources of grazing lands are not available.

Reduced livestock grazing in the allotment may have a negative financial effect on the allotment permittee

and, to a lesser extent, the local economy. It may be necessary for the permittee to secure other grazing

opportunities for forage to sustain the herd for the historic grazing season due to the reduction in available

forage from NFS lands.

Key indicators to analyze this concern: The reduction level of authorized Animal Unit Months (AUMs),

potential changes in revenues, and operating costs. This will be addressed qualitatively.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Issue addressed in alternative 1: To minimize impacts from areas closed to grazing or with limited

use, Alternative 1 includes flexibility and adaptive management and is proactive to changing conditions.

Issue addressed in alternative 3: Alternative 3 would continue current authorization with no reduction

in numbers or season of use.

Issue addressed in alternative 4: Alternative 4 proposes a lower stocking level and limits the grazing

system of use, but would not completely eliminate grazing in the allotment.

Alternatives

Alternatives Considered and Analyzed in Detail

Alternative 1: Proposed Action

Alternative 1, the proposed action, is described in detail on pages 10-21 of this document. Under alternative 1

grazing would continue to be authorized, under an adaptive management strategy. This strategy and Integrated

Design Features would be outlined in a revised Allotment Management Plan (AMP) which would be

incorporated into the current ten-year Term Grazing Permit, Part 3, Terms and Conditions. The AMP would

include the allotment specific resource objectives, management requirements, rangeland improvement criteria,

and monitoring and evaluation practices that would be applied.

Alternative 2: No Action

The no action alternative for NEPA decisions of grazing authorizations has been defined by the Forest Service as

no grazing (FSH 2209.13, Section 92.31). Under this alternative, commercial livestock grazing on federal lands

would no longer be authorized within Feather River Allotment. Other ongoing management activities not

associated with grazing would continue. The term grazing permit would be cancelled and lands would be

allocated to another public purpose as unsuitable to grazing (Forest Service Manual 2231.62d). Cancellation of

the term grazing permit would follow federal regulations described in 36 CFR222.4 and provide two years notice

to the permittee to vacate the allotment. Existing structural range improvements (fences) within the allotment

would be evaluated to determine whether or not to maintain or remove these structures.

This alternative, if selected, would include a Forest Plan amendment to close the allotment and remove it from

the grazing program.

Alternative 3: Current/ Historic Management (2009 permit)

Under Current/ Historic Management, authorized livestock grazing would continue in the Feather River

Allotment as described in the 2009 term permit. Management direction that would be followed would be based

on past annual operating instructions and the historic (1968) allotment management plan, or combination thereof.

Changes in grazing management would be administrative only. Proactive management of the range resource, to

adapt to changed resource or environmental conditions, would occur on a limited basis. Allotment Management

Plan (AMP) development would be based on the 2009 permit.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


The 2009 permit authorizes the grazing of 70 cow/calf pairs (head) on (74 percent) and 25 off (26 percent) for a

total of 95 for an average period of June 1 to October 15 or 4.567 months (137 days) period of use. Total

authorized use in the Feather River Allotment under the 2009 permit is approximately 416 animal units per

month (AUMs) each year on NFS lands, or 565 AUMs total NFS and private. As described in the Purpose and

Need section, due to changed circumstances the use level (2007-present) that has been authorized on an annual

basis is approximately 48 head or 209 AUMs on and 71 AUMs off, or 280 AUMs total. This stocking level

could be continued under current circumstances but the potential permitted limit would remain at 565 AUMs

total. The permitted season would generally be fixed though it can vary by up to two weeks depending on range

readiness. Range improvements (fences etc.) would be maintained by term grazing permit holders, as specified

in the term grazing permit.

Management under this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action in some aspects with the exception

that a grazing system and management criteria that addresses various resource values and uses would not be

formally incorporated into the permit. The allotment would continue to be managed on the existing allotment

boundary, existing requirements, and the existing potential limit of numbers of cattle permitted on the allotment.

The current (historic management) permit would continue to include some of the same criteria such as salt (or

mineral supplement), range readiness, key area/allotment moves, allotment exit, riding and herding, fire

restrictions, disposal of dead livestock, access and travel management, noxious weed prevention practices,

pesticides, and coordination for animal damage management. The current permit does not fully address other

design features including: Areas Closed to Grazing, or dry year/difficult management situations.

The IDFs or other management practices addressed in alternative 1 (direction regarding Threatened, Endangered

or Sensitive [TES] Plant Species, heritage resource protection, other adaptive management approach items for

aspen, Best Management Practices, Hydrologic Function) are not included in alternative 3, but minor adaptations

could be made within the scope of the permit using bill for collection and AOI processes. Other changes may

require further analysis.

Alternative 4: Reduced Stocking

This alternative was developed to address scoping comments that identified the unresolved conflict of potential

livestock distribution patterns to adjacent ownerships and other recreational use areas.

Alternative 4 would continue grazing authorization on Feather River Allotment at a reduced level for at least

three years, and would include monitoring to determine if increasing flexibility regarding livestock numbers,

season, or authorized area is appropriate, or if other adaptive options should be applied. Alternative 4 retains the

same allotment boundary but the authorized area for livestock grazing would be limited to Willow Creek

drainage. The season of use would be limited to approximately half of the current / historic season due to drift

issues which predominantly develop later in the season.

This alternative is based upon alternative 1 including IDFs, but with the following modifications.

New or changed elements of the Authorization Criteria include:

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


The permitted limit would be set to the lowest level allowed for a grazing permit (both on and off

portions combined). The number of livestock would be limited to 25 cow/calf pairs (head) for a two and

a half month season from June 1 to August 15 (84 AUMs). This equates to 20 head or 67 AUMs on

(74%), 5 head or 17 AUMs off (26%), for a total of 25 head 84 AUMs on/off with a season of use from

June 1 to August 15.

The on-date would remain the same but the off date would be adjusted so that livestock would be

removed from the Feather River Allotment by August 15 each year or if allowable use standards are met

prior to the season end date, whichever comes first. Otherwise the season end date would be fixed and

not allowed to vary more than three days

The authorized area would be limited to the Willow Creek drainage as shown on the attached map.

There would be no grazing or drifting cattle allowed outside of the authorized area, including paved

roads and Forest routes in and around recreation tract residences and campgrounds. This area of the

allotment would be considered Closed to Grazing.

Within the authorized area of the allotment, utilization of grass and grass-like plants would be limited to

30 percent. Outside of the authorized area, incidental use would be limited to less than 10 percent in

Areas Closed to Grazing.

Cattle entering unauthorized areas or remaining on the allotment outside of the authorized season

described in this alternative would be billed at the unauthorized use rate. Incidental use would be

limited to less than 10 percent and also subject to permit action. Unauthorized use may be cause for

suspension and/or cancellation action to be taken against the permittee.

The permit would be considered a variable permit type, within the permitted limit described above. There

would be an AMP and monitoring of NFS areas similar to alternative 1. An adaptive management strategy

would be implemented, as further described below.

New or changed elements of the Adaptive Management Strategy include:

Additional fencing, either temporary (electric) or permanent, may be necessary to prevent drift outside of the

authorized area. Following are some possible fencing locations:

Willow Creek gap (to prevent drift into the Willow Creek recreation residences tract and to protect an

aspen area),

Willow Creek road /connections to Warner Valley (to prevent drift into Warner Valley),

Forest Service Warner Creek campground, and SPI or private lands (to prevent drift into Warner Creek

Campground, SPI or private lands/residences).

Other range improvements may be considered if feasible or needed to control livestock and prevent drift. If

additional enclosures were considered they would be following Range Improvement planning criteria as

described in the Proposed Action and the AMP.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


New or changed Other / Adaptive Management Approach elements include:

Specific aspen and meadow protection (temporary fencing) in Willow Creek.

Mosquito Springs riparian area (further protection/ fencing of small seeps and springs).

Areas Closed / Authorized for Grazing: Under this alternative most of Feather River Allotment would be closed

to grazing. The only area authorized for grazing within the allotment would be the portion of the Willow Creek

drainage as shown on the map for alternative 4. Should there be changes in circumstances such as ownership

and management of Willow Lake (Beaty) or other lands, the grazing authorization would be re-evaluated under a

supplemental analysis.

Description of Management: Management would be similar as in alternative 1 except the stocking level would

be limited to 25 cow/calf pairs and the season would be limited to two and a half months. Livestock would only

be allowed in the authorized area of the allotment and they would be removed no later than August 15, or when

maximum annual authorized allowable standards are met. Any livestock that drift out of the authorized area

during the grazing season would be brought back to the authorized area or removed from the allotment. If

groups of livestock continued to drift after three continuous removals, the permittee would remove the livestock

from the allotment. This action would primarily be measured based on potential livestock utilization of meadow

and riparian areas, greater than 10 percent utilization outside of the authorized area. Livestock counts may be

requested to ensure compliance.

Trailing between a loading/unloading area (chute area along Forest Route 29N33) and the authorized grazing

area may be allowed if livestock impacts to Willow Creek tract residences can be minimized as well as drift.

Livestock will be herded by the permittee to and from the authorized area directly within 12 hour periods of

being loaded/ unloaded. If livestock control cannot be demonstrated the permittee would be required to haul the

cattle directly or to and from the loading area and authorized area in Willow Creek.

Monitoring would be as per the Allotment Management Plan, permit, and Annual Operating Instructions. The

monitoring data would be used to determine whether the current permitted limit (number of animals and season

of use) are consistent with meeting goals, objectives and management standards on the allotment, as well as

other limiting factors addressed in the management system of alternative 4.

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Further Study

There were no other alternatives considered, nor were any developed from issues raised by the public. The

historic management alternative was not eliminated from further study even though it may not fully accomplish

Forest Plan objectives, in order to provide a baseline for determining the environmental effects of the prior

livestock authorization.

Comparison of Alternatives:

The following Tables 4 – 7 outline differences between the alternatives relative to grazing authorization criteria,

important issues, effects to other relevant resources, and how well they respond to purpose and need attributes.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Table 4. Comparison of Alternatives: Feather River Allotment Grazing Authorization Criteria

Item to Compare

Alternative 1 Proposed Action


Alternative 3 Historic Management

Alternative 4 Reduced Stocking

Authorization Criteria

Grazing Authorization

Authorized Not Authorized Authorized Authorized

Kind of Animals; class

Cattle, cow/calf No livestock Cattle, cow/calf Cattle cow/calf

Grazing Season

Flexible within 6/1 to 9/30 (122 days)

No grazing season 6/1 to 10/15 (137 days)

Limited within 6/1 to 8/15 (76 days)

Livestock numbers

Permitted limit of 48 head or 258 AUMs (74% on, 26% off), with recommended season end date change to 9/30

No livestock Permitted limit of 95 head or 565 AUMs (74% on, 26% off) Last 3-5 yrs. authorized use of 48 head or 280 AUMs (74% on, 26% off)

Permitted limit of 25 head or 84 AUMs (74% on, 26% off); evaluate for increased flexibility after 3 years only if issue 1 has been addressed

Drought Plan Grazing within 188 AUMs Season limited to 3 months (6/1 to 8/30 or 91 days)

Not Applicable (N/A)

No formal plan No formal plan, stocking levels and grazing season meet alt.1 drought plan parameters

Capable and Suitable acres

(approximate)

Out of 13,310 NFS acres 620 acres primary range 2,815 ac. secondary range Adjusted primary range (468 acres) considered capable and suitable. Portions of other capable areas may receive incidental drift (<10% utilization)

13,310 acres considered unsuitable 0 acres primary, 0 secondary, 0 suitable acres

Out of 13,310 NFS acres 620 acres primary, 2,815 ac. Secondary Primary and secondary range considered capable and suitable (3,283).

Same as alt.1. Adjusted primary range (468 acres) considered capable and suitable would be within the Willow Creek drainage, or designated for purposes of trailing. Lower limit for incidental drift <10% utilization

Recommended Allotment Mgt. Strategy

B - Some livestock A - No livestock C - Extensive management

B - Some livestock

Adaptive management strategy (within

the scope of the current NEPA analysis)

Yes – would be included in the AMP and Term Grazing Permit. If consistent with related decisions and/or the administrative authority of the Forest Service, no additional analysis required for applying adaptive management options.

N/A Limited – would not be formally incorporated. Minor adjustments could be made through the bill for collection or AOI. Other adaptive management options may need further environmental analysis and permit modification.

Yes – would be included in AMP and Term Grazing Permit but adaptive management options would need to remain within alt.4 authorization criteria. Management options with limited flexibility for at least 3 years, and overall less flexibility than alt.1.

Areas Closed or limited to

grazing (NFS lands)

Closed: Upper Willow Lake, Domingo Spr., Domingo Lake Closed/ Buffered: East boundary adjacent to Warner Valley Restricted: Domingo Spr. and Warner Valley campgrounds when active, Other areas

Closed: Feather River Allotment

No formal restrictions for NFS areas within the allotment. Fenced: Upper Willow Lake area. Informal requests to keep cattle out of recreational use areas.

Livestock restricted to Willow Creek drainage as shown in the alt.4 map. Closed: all other areas within the allotment would be considered closed to grazing.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Range Improvements

Two fences continued with maintenance requirements as described in alt.1 range improvement criteria. One new fence included under adaptive management strategy.

Existing range improvements would be evaluated for removal.

Existing range improvements continued as per the existing permit. New improvements or modifications require administrative processes.

Two fences continued with maintenance requirements similar to alt.1. Other gap fences may be considered for Willow Creek under adaptive management strategy of alt.4.

Implementation monitoring

(Forage Utilization Standards)

Monitoring of all Key areas continued with utilization standards based on satisfactory conditions effectiveness monitoring (adaptive management). For Willow Creek: 40% meadows, 50% uplands, 20% riparian shrub or hardwoods). For Buzzard: 30% meadows. For closed /restricted areas: <10%), adaptive basis for other areas

N/A Utilization standards in the 2009 Term Grazing Permit would continue to be applied based on satisfactory conditions unless permit administratively modified. For

allotment: up to 40%

riparian, 50% uplands, 20% riparian shrub or hardwoods. Special instructions for Buzzard as per AOI

Monitoring of Key areas continued with focus on Willow Creek, utilization standards lowered to 30% for the Willow Creek authorized area, 10% for all areas outside of Willow Creek for management of Areas Closed to Grazing

Effectiveness monitoring

Long term trend studies would be continued with findings applied to adaptive management.

Long term trend studies would be continued, with possible longer sampling intervals.

Long term trend studies continued, permit would need to be administratively modified if changes in management required.

Long term trend studies would be continued with findings applied to adaptive management similar to alt.1, with emphasis on Willow Creek area.

Trailing Trailing in/out of Willow Creek, other areas as per the alt.1 adaptive management system. Somewhat flexible.

N/A Not specified in Alt 3 Trailing restricted to Willow Creek and reduced stocking management system outlined in alt.4.

Compliance requirements

Compliance actions according to R5 Grazing Permit Administration Suspension and Cancellation Guidelines. Compliance would be required for alt.1 criteria incorporated into AMP/permit including excess Use, following management Instructions, maintenance of assigned range improvements

N/A Compliance actions according to R5 Grazing Permit Administration Suspension and Cancellation Guidelines. Compliance required for existing permit terms and conditions.

Compliance actions according to R5 Grazing Permit Administration Suspension and Cancellation Guidelines. Compliance would be required for alt.4 criteria incorporated into AMP/permit including excess use, following management Instructions, maintenance of assigned range improvements

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Table 5. Comparison of alternatives in terms of important issues

Key Indicators by Alternative

Item to Compare





Issue 1

Recreation Experiences

(Negative effect for some visitors and public uses) Adjacent Ownerships

Grazing management criteria considers timing of recreation season. Description of management and adaptive options likely to reduce the severity of negative impacts, but some impact likely to continue.

No effect from livestock grazing.

Livestock effects may be noticed near residences, roadways, campgrounds, trailheads, and dispersed camping areas. Possible hunting or other scenic value conflicts.

Grazing management criteria adjusted to a reduced level to minimize conflicts. Potential for recreation and private landowner conflicts are greatly reduced

Issue 2

Economic Viability

(Change from historic management authorized use or overall permittee operating costs)

Authorized use would continue at 50% lower than the historic alt.3 level though actual use would be at similar levels as the past 6 years. Possible increase in operating costs to implement grazing management criteria or drought plan. Possible need for other private grazing areas.

100% reduction in authorized use. Loss of direct and indirect jobs, income to County or other agencies from grazing fees and livestock property tax. Permittees’ traditional uses discontinued.

50% reduction from historic level currently being voluntarily implemented. Total AUMs would not change unless permit administratively modified. Possible increase in operating costs if full stocking level resumed in order to remain in compliance or resolve conflicts.

85% decrease from historic authorized level, 67% decrease from alt.1 level. Probable large increase in operation costs, need for alternative private pasture.

Table 6. Comparison of effects to other relevant resources by alternative

Relevant Resources by Alternative

Item to Compare





Rangeland Resources Condition and Trend

Design criteria, including foraging standards described in the grazing permit and revised AMP, likely to continue to move toward desired long-term rangeland resource trend. Effects anticipated to be beneficial. Adaptive options described in the AMP likely to reduce impacts to vegetation, watershed conditions.

Possible short term improvement in health, vigor in previous foraging areas, vegetative cover, accumulation of dead vegetative material, stable long term trends expected

Existing (2009) permit terms and conditions including foraging standards likely to continue current rangeland resource conditions. Buzzard area at risk of remaining unsatisfactory.

Similar to alternative 1.

Heritage Resources

Design criteria addressed in a revised AMP likely to minimize future livestock effects. Monitoring and adaptive management per the LNF Grazing-Heritage Strategy.


Continued implementation of the Programmatic MOU, so effects are minimized.

Similar effects as alternative 1.

Watersheds No effect at the 6th

field watershed scale, authorization criteria, IDFs, adaptive measures in a revised AMP likely to minimize effects. Compaction effects considered low, risk of increased sedimentation considered low to moderate, risk of increased % fines low to moderate,


Similar effects as alternative 1. Buzzard area at risk of remaining functioning at risk, increased risk of degradation of water quality and associated beneficial

Similar effects as alternative 1 although lessened. Areas closed to grazing similar to alternative 2 as they recover

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


risk of adverse effects to bank stability considered low, risk of livestock waste affecting water quality is low. Cumulative watershed effects based on the ERA model low to moderate.

uses at some specific sites.

towards pre-livestock grazing conditions.

Botanical Species

(No known federally listed Threatened or Endangered plant species).

No effects on any Sensitive plant species.

No effects to any Sensitive plant species.

No effects on Scheuchzeria palustris. May affect

individuals or habitat of Botrychium minganense, B. montanum, and B. pinnatum at Domingo

Lake but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing as Threatened or Endangered or in a loss of viability

No effects on any Sensitive plant species.

Terrestrial Wildlife Forest Service Sensitive Species

(FT = Federally listed as Threatened FC=Federal Candidate for listing FE = Federally listed as Endangered FSS=Forest Service Sensitive FP = Federally Proposed for listing)

Will not affect the following federally listed Threatened or Endangered wildlife species or their designated critical habitat (FT): Gray Wolf, Northern Spotted Owl, Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle, Giant Garter Snake Will not affect the following R5 sensitive species (FSS): Great gray owl, Northern bald eagle, Greater Sandhill Crane, Yellow Rail, California Wolverine, Pacific Fisher, Pallid Bat, Townsend’s Big-eared Bat, Fringed myotis, Western Pond Turtle, and Shasta Hesperian snail May affect individuals, but are not likely to cause a trend towards listing or loss of viability for the following: California spotted owl, Northern goshawk, Willow flycatcher, American marten, Sierra Nevada red fox, and Western bumblebee

No direct or indirect effect from livestock grazing.

Similar effects for action alternatives 1, 3, and 4.


Aquatic Species and Habitats

May affect individuals, not likely to trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability. Cascade frog, black juga (FSS).




Management Indicator Species (MIS) and Habitats

Lacustrine/ Riverine Habitat (Aquatic macroinvertebrates): No alterations expected to flow, moderate risk of sedimentation, negligible alterations to water surface shade, moderate risk of cumulative effects. Riparian Habitat (Yellow warbler) May affect riparian vegetation, no adverse cumulative effects, Wet Meadow Habitat (Pacific treefrog): no reductions in wet meadows/wetlands expected, herbaceous height may be


Similar effects as alternative 1.

Lacustrine/ Riverine Habitat (Aquatic macroinvertebrates): Similar effects as alt.1, low to moderate risk of cumulative effects Riparian Habitat (Yellow warbler) Similar effects as alt.1.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


expected to decline, Changes in CWHR herbaceous ground cover may occur, some soil compaction may occur but measurable changes not expected. Low to moderate risk of further wet meadow loss or degradation of wet meadow /wetland acreage and hydrology For all: project not expected to alter the existing trend in the habitat, or lead to a change across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

Wet Meadow Habitat (Pacific treefrog): effects lower than expected for alternatives 1 or 3.

Table 7. Alternative Comparison in terms of Purpose and Need (Yes - meets, No - does not, N/A - Not Applicable)

Purpose and Need Alternative 1 Proposed Action




Manage livestock according to a planned management system, while providing for off-portion (private land) grazing in the Willow Creek drainage.

Yes No

No – No defined management system, Yes – Off-grazing continued

Yes

Identify and apply site specific utilization standards that will contribute towards satisfactory condition of meadow vegetation

Yes N/A

Yes, but some not formally incorporated (Buzzard, other areas)

Yes

Protect Special Aquatic Habitats: Yes N/A No (not completely) Yes

Maintain Hydrologic Function Yes N/A No (not completely Yes

Recreation/ Private /Other Ownerships, Minimize risk of drift to areas of concern, private/ other ownerships

Yes, but may be some continued risk

N/A No Yes

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

This section summarizes the potential impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. More detailed analysis is

contained in the following documents which are hereby incorporated by reference:

Rangeland Resources Report

Recreation Report

Cultural Resource Report

Watershed Specialist Report

Biological Evaluation and Assessment for Forest Service Sensitive, and Federally Listed Plant Species

Noxious Weed Risk Assessment

Biological Evaluation and Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife Species and Habitats

Biological Evaluation and Assessment for Forest Service Sensitive and Federally listed Aquatic Species

Management Indicator Species Report

For all of the following resource effects sections, unless indicated otherwise the area of analysis includes NFS lands

within the Feather River Allotment boundary (with the exception of the adjacent ownerships section).

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action and

alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This

is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have

affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects.

This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by adding up all prior

actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not taking this approach. First, a catalog and

analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and unduly costly to obtain. Current conditions have

been impacted by innumerable actions over the last century (and beyond), and trying to isolate the individual actions

that continue to have residual impacts would be nearly impossible. Second, providing the details of past actions on

an individual basis would not be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposed action or alternatives. In

fact, focusing on individual actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions, because there is

limited information on the environmental impacts of individual past actions, and one cannot reasonably identify each

and every action over the last century that has contributed to current conditions. Additionally, focusing on the

impacts of past human actions risks ignoring the important residual effects of past natural events which may

contribute to cumulative effects just as much as human actions. By looking at current conditions, we are sure to

capture all the residual effects of past human actions and natural events, regardless of which particular action or

event contributed those effects. Third, public scoping for this project did not identify any public interest or need or

detailed information on individual past actions. Finally, the Council on Environmental Quality issued an interpretive

memorandum on June 24, 2005, regarding analysis of past actions which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate

cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the

historical details of individual past actions”.

The cumulative effects analysis in this EA is also consistent with Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) Regulations (36 CFR 220.4(f)) (July 24, 2008) which state, in part:

“CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to determine

the present effects of past actions. Once the agency has identified those present effects of past actions that

warrant consideration, the agency assesses the extent that the effects of the proposal for agency action or its

alternatives will add to, modify, or mitigate those effects. The final analysis documents an agency

assessment of the cumulative effects of the actions considered (including past, present, and reasonable

foreseeable future actions) on the affected environment. With respect to past actions, during the scoping

process and subsequent preparation of the analysis, the agency must determine what information regarding

past actions is useful and relevant to the required analysis of cumulative effects. Cataloging past actions and

specific information about the direct and indirect effects of their design and implementation could, in some

contexts, be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposal. The CEQ regulations, however, do not

require agencies to catalogue or exhaustively list and analyze all individual past actions. Simply because

information about past actions may be available or obtained with reasonable effort does not mean that it is

relevant and necessary to inform decisionmaking. (40 CFR 1508.7)”

For these reasons, the analysis of past actions in this section is based on current environmental conditions.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Effects to Rangeland Resources

Rangeland, Range Public Services

1. Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects:

The AMP would contain objectives that are designed to meet defined conditions for soils and vegetation and

the effects of adaptive management practices are anticipated to be beneficial. Site specific management

would be applied to Buzzard meadows as well as other areas and these practices would allow grazing use to

stay in compliance with Forest Plan direction.

This alternative would maintain satisfactory conditions where they exist (Willow Creek at Potential Natural

Community, meeting desired conditions for green line communities) and move unsatisfactory conditions

(such as those at Buzzard Meadow, low ecological status with stable 5 year trend) towards desired

conditions in both short and long term timeframes. Past forage utilization monitoring indicates that the

grazing system proposed under this alternative, in combination with the proposed adaptive management,

would likely result in desired conditions being met in the Feather River Allotment. Satisfactory or

improving conditions would be expected to be sustained and apparent stable trends in other areas would be

expected to continue within the next 15 years.

This alternative continues the current allotment boundary but the grazing system describes limiting factors

for the area authorized for livestock grazing. Capable lands within the Feather River Allotment would be

adjusted for other than suitable where grazing is not feasible or consistent with other land management

decisions for site-specific areas. The process used to review capability and suitability was to review

allotment maps, range analysis and other allotment information. Of the capable primary and secondary

range acres (3,435) within the allotment, 468 primary range acres would be classified as adjusted suitable

range. Approximately 11,612 acres (73 percent) would be considered non-capable or non-suitable.

The proposed change in capable or suitable acres within the allotment is mainly due to conflicts with

recreation and risk of drift. The change may affect the ability of the allotment to support the level of

livestock grazing being proposed and some non-capable lands may be grazed. Capability and suitability are

land allocations in the Forest Plan, to be validated at the project level. It should be noted that capability does

not equal capacity, and that Forest Plans do not make site specific decisions.

This alternative would result in establishing the authorized number of livestock to reflect the (2007 to

present) use level, and shortening the season by two weeks. This would equate to approximately 46 percent

of the historic level authorized under the existing permit. The allotment would continue to be used in

combination with Off-Grazing private areas in Willow Creek. Although not specified, by retaining a four

month season this alternative would accommodate flexibility for a potential rotational grazing system with

alternative pasture areas, if such a future operation became available for this allotment.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


The Dry Year/Difficult Management Situation (Drought Plan) component of this alternative may result in a

reduced level of authorized grazing in the allotment in some years. The Drought Plan stocking level would

result in a 67 percent decrease from the historic level and a 27 percent decrease from the proposed

alternative 1 level.

Range improvements in the allotment would be maintained by the grazing permittee as part of the permit

terms and conditions and revised AMP. An updated list of fences with maintenance responsibility is

proposed.

Potential benefits of an adaptive management approach may be greater than the historic situation since the

AMP would be proactive and flexible.

Alternative 1 contains adaptive management measures and the ranching operation may benefit from adaptive

practices as a result of increased land performance, vegetation health, or other allotment situations.

Monitoring completed during the life of this decision may reveal that not all actions are required, and

options would be implemented only to the extent that they are actually needed. However, where areas of

resource concern are identified, this alternative would require some additional management by permittees.

The exact effects of implementing alternative 1 and impact to the ranching operation and AUM level are

unknown but some change in range management is foreseen. Adaptive measures such as additional range

improvements, other protective actions and maintenance needs could potentially increase the economic

impact to the livestock operation. With a shorter season, limits on allotment areas to be used, and in some

years implementation of a drought plan the permittee would need to remove livestock earlier than the

historic system, find alternative private pasture or provide supplemental feed. Failure to meet utilization or

other standards could potentially result in future reductions in AUM and a resulting negative economic

impact to the permittee.

The need to remain in compliance with requirements in private lands in the vicinity of the allotment may

affect the operator’s profit margins or otherwise negatively affect the operation. Adjustments to federal

grazing, including potential cost increases to permittees such as through additional herding or fence

maintenance can have important consequences to individual ranch operations and ranch viability, as well as

implications to land use.

The operator has already made some adjustments in using forage from Forest Service lands and some

adaptations have taken place within the allotment in the past several years. Outside forces play a large role

in the ability for ranchers to maintain an operation’s profitability. The operator may not be able to adapt to

new management practices and profit margins could become too small to remain in business.

Cumulative Effects: Out of sixty allotments or Rangeland Management Units (RMUs) on the Lassen

National Forest, forty five allotments are considered active (75 percent) and fifteen are vacant. On the

Almanor Ranger District, eleven allotments are considered active (55 percent) including Feather River

Allotment, and nine allotments are vacant. With the exception of private grazing operations to the west,

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


there are no active allotments adjacent to Feather River Allotment. This alternative would not change the

status quo of active vs. vacant allotments on the LNF.

Grazing on adjacent private lands to the west of the allotment is expected to continue. These private Land

inholdings are fenced from the adjacent federal land and may be grazed more heavily or more heavily

stocked than federal grazing land. Effects of grazing on Forest Service lands, when combined with

authorized grazing activities on these lands may influence functioning condition of adjacent allotment areas.

Previous actions or projects such as vegetation management projects may have provided, or are providing,

transitory grazing opportunities for livestock where more open forest habitat was created. Conifer

encroachment into meadows from management activities, including fire suppression, may have affected

meadow condition and/or forage availability. These actions or projects have not resulted in major changes in

grazing use on Feather River Allotment.

Ongoing and future vegetation management activities would occur concurrently with grazing under

this alternative. Meadow condition and/or forage availability may benefit from treatments, and

combined with expected direct and indirect effects resulting from alternative 1, may result in a

positive cumulative effect on herbaceous vegetation over the long-term.

The proposed forage utilization levels are within Forest Plan Standards, thus reducing the potential for

cumulative effects to the range resource.

2. Alternative 2 (No Action/No Grazing)


Indirectly, previous foraging areas could experience increases in litter accumulation and decreases in bare

ground. Matting and accumulation of dead plant material could result, and possibly insulate the ground;

provide water-holding capacity and decrease surface soil movement and erosion. Grasses that evolved with

the periodic removal of vegetative material through fire, insects, or ungulates, in the absence of grazing or

other disturbance, may eventually decrease in vigor. Deer would continue to utilize some riparian

hardwoods. Based on these anticipated effects, the overall effect of no livestock grazing on rangeland

condition could be beneficial the first few years and potentially neutral to negative thereafter, depending on

the effects of deer and insect herbivory, fire effects, and other non-livestock interactions.

Fences (range improvements on NFS lands within the allotment, or as proposed) would no longer be needed

for livestock grazing management and would be evaluated for removal.

Capable and suitable lands would be discontinued and the LRMP allotment strategy would need to be

modified. This alternative would result in no authorized grazing in the allotment, and, therefore, would have

the biggest economic effect to the permittees and the county. There would be a 100 percent reduction in the

permitted limit of livestock (95 cow-calf pairs), (74 percent on 26 percent off) and months (4.567) in the

grazing season or 565 AUMs in the Feather River Allotment, and the 2007 to present authorized stocking

level of 280 AUMs. This would likely result in loss of income for the permittee and others.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Cumulative Effects: This alternative could result in loss of income for the permittee and loss of jobs in the

county. This loss of jobs would occur in the agriculture and mining sector, which is already in decline.

Vacant allotments on the LNF would increase from 25 percent to 27 percent. Ongoing and future

vegetation management and recreational activities would continue regardless of grazing.

3. Alternative 3 (Historic Management)


The existing (2009) permit terms and conditions including foraging standards would be expected to continue

the current rangeland resource conditions. With the exception of the Buzzard area, existing long-term

monitoring data shows that overall rangeland vegetation conditions in the Feather River Allotment are

meeting desired conditions. Past forage utilization monitoring also indicates that the currently authorized

number of cow-calf pairs generally are meeting forage utilization standards.

The current permit does not fully address other design features including: Areas Closed to Grazing, noxious

weed prevention practices, Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive (TES) and Special Interest Plant Species,

and Heritage Resource protection. The current/historic permit also does not fully address Adaptive

Management options or dry year/difficult management situations. The permit and AMP would need to be

administratively modified to address future management changes.

This alternative is similar to alternative 1, but does not fully meet the purpose and need for the project or

applicable Forest Plan direction. Neither the currently authorized number nor the potential limit has

demonstrated that identified management concerns, in regards to key issues (recreation experiences and

adjacent ownerships) can be attained under current management. These considerations would be expected to

remain static or begin to decline with this alternative with continuation of the current authorized level or if

the potential permitted limit was resumed.

The current (historic management) permit addresses some of the same criteria and design features (including

salt (or mineral supplement), range readiness, key area/allotment moves, allotment exit, riding and herding,

fire restrictions, disposal of dead livestock, access and travel management, noxious weed prevention

practices, pesticides, and coordination for animal damage management). As described above the permit and

AMP may need to be administratively modified to address other adaptive management.

Implementation of alternative 3 would continue to support agricultural‐related jobs but this

alternative could result in a possible increase in operating costs to the permittee if the current authorized

level was continued or the full stocking level was resumed, because a sustained effort would likely continue

to be necessary or possibly increase in order to comply with implementation standards and respond to

identified management concerns in regards to adjacent ownerships.

Cumulative Effects: This alternative would not change the permitted use, therefore no cumulative effect on

economic viability would be expected. There would be no change in the status quo of active vs. vacant

allotments on the LNF. Ongoing and future vegetation management and other activities would occur

concurrently with grazing under this alternative, similar to alternative 1.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


4. Alternative 4 (Reduced Stocking)

Direct and Indirect Effects: Similar to alternative 1, but this alternative would be more responsive to issue 1

(Key indicators for recreation values) and some applicable Forest Plan direction while still meeting the

purpose and need for the project.

No measurable effects are expected due to the lowered utilization standard for the Buzzard area, because

most of the western portion of the allotment has not been used in recent years under the current (2007 to

present) stocking level. Conditions in this area would be expected to remain static or begin to improve under

this alternative, similar to alternative 2.

Reducing the number of permitted animals, season, and authorized grazing area would help reduce the

overall potential for conflicts on adjacent private lands. This alternative would result in a reduced level of

authorized grazing in the allotment with an 85 percent decrease from the historic level of use, a 67 percent

decrease from the proposed alternative 1 level and a 56 percent decrease from the Alternative 1 Drought

Plan level. It is unknown whether this alternative would reduce the need for additional fencing or livestock

distribution efforts by the permittee but a smaller operation may be easier to manage, including controlling

undesirable drift.

The allotment’s adjusted suitable range would be scheduled for review after three years to determine if the

management system successfully addresses identified issues and relevant resources, or if adaptive options or

flexibility could be applied.

As with alternative 1, this alternative could serve to facilitate a rotational grazing system with other pastures

but it is unknown if such an operation would be feasible for this allotment. The standard of management

invested by the permittee(s) could possibly allow for future adjustments under this alternative.

This alternative may have an economic impact on permittees and could result in increases in operation costs.

Livestock numbers would be lower and permittees would be required to find alternative private pasture for

the later portion of the season. Failure to meet authorization criteria or other standards could also potentially

result in future reductions.

Cumulative Effects: Similar to alternative 1 but effects are expected to be responsive to issue 1, and less

responsive to issue 2.

Effects to Public Services

Recreation / Visitor Experiences


Direct and Indirect Effects: This alternative would result in a continuation of the current authorized numbers

of animals on the landscape during the primary visitor use season, which is lower than the historic level.

The grazing system proposed along with the continued reduction in herd size could potentially result in

improved allotment management and fewer complaints from the public about grazing impacts to recreation

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


facilities and trails, than in the past. A revised Allotment Management Plan incorporating resource

objective, adaptive management strategies and monitoring/evaluation criteria would allow for real time

grazing and use adjustment to meet existing conditions. Presence of cattle in and around recreation sites,

recreation residence tracts, and trails could be reduced and effects of their presence could decrease

accordingly.

Cumulative Effects: Some drift may continue into recreation areas, however, the effect is expected to be

minimal when combined with past, present, and planned actions. Public recreational use of the area,

including hiking, camping, and fishing, would continue to occur. The use of recreational livestock may

impact cattle distribution and compete for forage resources. Impacts from these activities are not expected to

negatively impact recreation resources when combined with the effects of the proposed action.


Direct and Indirect Effects: The no-action alternative would result in no authorized grazing activities within

the project area. Impacts to developed and dispersed recreation facilities from cattle drift would be

eliminated. Visitor complaints about cattle impacts would be eliminated. The need to maintain exclusion

fencing for cattle in and around recreation facilities would be eliminated.

Cumulative Effects: Based on the direct and indirect effects on recreation resources under this alternative,

there would be no cumulative negative effects on recreation under the no grazing alternative, and no grazing

may have a cumulative beneficial effect.


Direct and Indirect Effects: With no change to the current management of the Feather River Allotment it is

reasonable to expect similar ongoing issues with regard to animal drift and herd management. Potential

forest user complaints and other resource values would not be formally addressed and adaptive options

would not be incorporated into the permit. In recreation sites with a VQO designation of Retention,

recreation management objectives would not be met with continued encroachment of cattle and the resulting

impacts of their presence.

Cumulative Effects: Based on the direct and indirect effects on recreation resources under this alternative,

some cumulative negative effects on recreation would be expected when combined with the effects of past,

present, and planned range management actions.


Direct and Indirect Effects: This alternative would eliminate cattle drift outside of the Willow Creek

drainage and limit the season of use. Impacts to the recreation facilities outside of the Willow Creek

drainage would be eliminated under this alternative. Adaptive management elements included in this

alternative would include potential fencing to prevent drift into the Willow Creek Home sites and Warner

Valley area.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Cumulative Effects: Based on the beneficial direct and indirect effects on recreation resources under this

alternative, there would be more beneficial cumulative effects on recreation under this alternative that

alternatives 1 or 3.

Adjacent Ownerships

The area of analysis includes adjacent areas to Feather River Allotment, mainly along the Forest boundary

near Warner Valley, as well as areas near Lassen Volcanic National Park.

When national forest management objectives differ from those of neighboring landowners, the potential for

conflicts exist. Some private land owners are concerned that grazing activities on nearby National Forest

System lands could have negative effects on vegetation, water quality, noise, and recreation opportunities on

their private property due to cattle trespass. As a result of these concerns, a number of private landowners

with property adjacent to National Forest System lands in the Allotment are opposed to grazing on nearby

national forest lands.

The type and pattern of land ownership, in combination with changing patterns of forage availability, has

made cattle trespass onto privately owned lands adjacent to the allotment increasingly problematic. The

areas with the most conflict have been along the Forest boundary near Warner Valley, as well as areas near

Lassen Volcanic National Park.


Direct and Indirect Effects: As evidenced in comment letters received from private landowners and

residents in this area, there is the potential for conflicts. This alternative may address some of the concerns

and the permittee would be responsible for working with adjacent landowners to ensure that cattle did not

trespass on private lands.

Along the eastern, outer side of the allotment boundary, this alternative would address potential conflicts

with adjacent private landowners by including an area closed to grazing along the eastern allotment

boundary to exclude Warner Valley private lands of other ownership. The closure would follow the

ridgeline and exclude a buffer of NFS lands which are not feasible to graze without authorization of other

ownerships. The lower allotment area which has numerous residences both within and adjacent to the

allotment boundary would also be considered an area closed to grazing.

Reducing the season by two weeks under this alternative should help reduce the overall potential for

conflicts, as much of the conflict tends to occur later in the season. The reduced grazing season with

alternative 1 may also reduce pressure on Domingo private fences towards the end of the season.

Cumulative Effects: Some drift may continue into adjacent ownerships, however, the cumulative effect is

expected to be minimal when combined with past, present, and planned actions.


Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects: Under alternative 2 (the no grazing alternative), the potential for

grazing-related conflicts with adjacent private land owners due to management of the allotment would be

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


eliminated as grazing would be discontinued on National Forest System lands within the Allotment. The

cumulative effect is expected to be beneficial to recreation experiences as related to adjacent ownerships.


Direct and Indirect Effects: The potential for grazing-related conflicts with adjacent private lands under

Alternative 3 would likely be greater than Alternative 1, with no areas closed to grazing, nor specific

monitoring and identified triggers for administrative action associated with livestock drift onto private lands.

The potential conflicts with adjacent private landowners could continue and may result in administrative

actions of the agency or individual with jurisdiction.

Cumulative Effects: Based on the direct and indirect effects on adjacent ownerships under this alternative,

some cumulative negative effects would be expected when combined with past, present, and planned actions,

impacts from these activities.


Direct and Indirect Effects: The potential for grazing-related conflicts with adjacent private lands would be

less under alternative 4 compared to alternative 1, primarily due to fewer numbers of livestock and a shorter

period of time that livestock would be allowed to graze on National Forest System lands within the allotment

(84 AUMs under Alternative 4 compared to 258 AUMs under Alternative 1). As under alternative 1,

alternative 4 would also relieve potential conflicts with adjacent private landowners by further defining the

area closed to grazing adjacent to Warner Valley. The Lassen National Forest would continue to work with

the permittee through the permit administration process to reduce the potential for conflicts.

Cumulative Effects: Based on the beneficial direct and indirect effects on recreation resources under this

alternative, there would be fewer cumulative negative effects on recreation under this alternative than

alternatives 1 or 3.

Effects to Heritage Resources


Direct and Indirect Effects: Condition assessments of known heritage sites have documented few instances

of cattle related damage within this allotment. Alternative 1 would not allow adverse effects to heritage

resources. Historic properties eligible or potentially eligible would be protected from direct or indirect

effects resulting from rangeland activities. Specific criteria designed for the protection of cultural resource

sites would be integrated into the allotment management plan. Adaptive management would be used to

resolve compliance issues following the process established by the Lassen National Forest Grazing-Heritage

Strategy. Livestock would no longer be allowed to congregate on historic properties or within the

boundaries of eligible or potentially eligible sites that could be threatened by the presence of cattle (at risk

properties). Livestock would no longer be allowed to use existing trails crossing historic properties.

Adaptive management and mitigation measures specific to each property would end direct or indirect

adverse effects to these sites and the loss of valuable archaeological data. Riding, herding and the placement

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


of salt and mineral supplements would be utilized to achieve management objectives in regards to the

protection of cultural resources. Utilization standards in key areas would be met allowing vegetation to

obscure surface artifacts and protect subsurface materials from erosion. Site condition monitoring of “at

risk” historic properties would take place on an annual basis to identify any range-related impacts and

resolve conflicts.

Cumulative Effects: The majority of the Feather River allotment has been inventoried for cultural resources.

The results of these survey efforts have identified numerous historic and prehistoric sites throughout the

allotment. The majority of prehistoric resources are clearly found in areas associated with water near creeks,

lakes, and springs; in meadows and along the meadow/forest transition zone which are also “high use” areas

for cattle. Fifty-two cultural resource sites have been identified within the Feather River Range allotment;

forty-three sites are considered eligible for listing on the NRHP and require protection. Early cultural

resource inventories and more recent site condition assessments suggest that past logging operations, road

building and recreation activities have damaged many sites in this allotment over the years. Recent site

assessments indicate that recreational activities and OHV use are the primary culprits inflicting damage to

site deposits; cattle effects are minimal at this time.

Implementation of alternative 1 should have no added effect to historic properties as mitigation measures

(integrated design criteria) would be integrated into the permit and AMP, and an adaptive management

strategy would be used to resolve resource conflicts.


Direct and Indirect Effects: This alternative would not authorize grazing in the allotment which would result

in a direct beneficial effect to cultural resources as cattle and other range activities could not potentially

harm this resource. Although, cattle impacts for this allotment have been minimal other nearby range

allotments have shown extensive damage (wallows, trampling, entrenched trails); closing the allotment

would stop any cattle induced disturbance in the future.

Implementation of the no grazing alternative would also have indirect beneficial effects to heritage resources

by increasing vegetative cover which would lessen the risk of site erosion and looting. Upon permit

termination, removal of historic grazing improvements would follow the NHPA Section 106 compliance and

Federal regulations. The “no grazing” alternative would provide the most protection of cultural resources of

all the alternatives.

Cumulative Effects: Since the direct and indirect effects of alternative 2 are beneficial, there would be no

cumulative impact to heritage resources from this alternative.


Direct and Indirect Effects: The continued implementation of current/historic management may result in

effects to historic properties as cattle range throughout the allotment including archaeologically sensitive

areas. Although site condition assessments have shown few impacts to sites from cattle grazing or range

improvements in this allotment, conflicts have been documented and will continue to happen as cattle tend to

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


graze close to or within riparian areas and meadow/forest transition zones. The density of prehistoric sites in

these areas is high especially near Domingo & Mosquito Springs, Domingo Creek and the north fork of the

Feather River. Grazing of these areas can cause direct surface and subsurface damage to sites from

trampling, wallows and trails. The loss of surface vegetation increases the potential for looting as well as

erosive forces affecting the integrity of the deposit. Specific protection measures are not part of the term

permit/allotment management plan and trying to resolve cattle related problems administratively has proved

to be slow and difficult on other nearby allotments. Annual monitoring efforts will determine site condition

and any mitigation needed in the future to prevent adverse effects to historic properties.

Historic management (alternative 3) could result in continued grazing in archaeologically sensitive areas of

the allotment with few restrictions, which will eventually lead to additional site damage.

Cumulative Effects: The discussion of cumulative effects to heritage resources in relation to other past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions is similar to alternative 1, but the potential for cumulative

negative effects is slightly higher under this alternative.


Direct and Indirect Effects: Effects are similar to those discussed in the proposed action (see alternative 1).

This alternative has a greater beneficial effect to cultural resource sites than alternative 1 in that it would no

longer allow grazing in areas of high site density where the majority of “at risk” properties and range-related

conflicts (i.e., Domingo Creek, Domingo Springs, Mosquito Springs, north fork Feather River) have been

documented.

Alternative 4 which strictly limits the number of cattle, length of use and location of grazing, would provide

the most protection of cultural resources of any of the action alternatives.

Cumulative Effects: Implementation of alternative 4 should have no cumulative effect to historic properties

as mitigation measures (integrated design criteria) would be integrated into the permit and AMP, and an

adaptive management strategy would be used to resolve resource conflicts.

Effects to Watershed (Hydrological Resources - Soil and Water)

1. Alternative 1 (Proposed Action):


Compaction: Compaction effects from livestock use are considered low. The risk of compaction increases

when soil moisture is high. Primary areas of concern are riparian areas within the allotment, including

Willow Creek, tributaries to Feather River, and various meadows. Monitoring sites within the Feather River

Allotment riparian areas have indicated that there may have been past adverse effects resulting from

livestock use. Under this alternative livestock entry onto the allotment would occur when soils are dry

enough to withstand grazing. This would help mitigate soil compaction due to livestock use. Some riparian

areas such as upper Warner Valley drainage, Willow Lake, Domingo Lake and spring area, Mosquito Spring

would be prohibited from livestock use. Other areas such as Buzzard Springs, Domingo Springs

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Campground and Warner Valley Campground and adjacent areas would have limited use periods. This

would have the effect of eliminating or reducing soil compaction due to livestock use in those riparian areas.

There would likely be some soil compaction in areas where livestock graze along stream banks, particularly

along Willow Creek.

Soil disturbance, removal of vegetation and creation of bare soil: The risk of increased erosion and

sedimentation due to livestock use would be considered low to moderate. The proposed seasonal grazing

under alternative 1 would be limited to four months. Though stocking rates would be low across the

allotment (48 cow/calf pairs On/Off over 14,895 total acres), the livestock are not uniformly dispersed based

on observations of past use. Livestock generally concentrate along accessible areas of Willow Creek. The

proposed utilization standards for riparian meadows would help mitigate adverse impacts that disturb the soil

and subsequent susceptibility to erosion. These standards include limiting utilization of grass and grass-like

plants to 40 percent and retaining a four inch end-of-season streamside stubble height. The proposed

utilization standards meet the standards and guidelines for Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) which were

established to preserve, restore or enhance special aquatic features such as meadows and wetlands. These

utilization standards would be monitored in the allotment key areas (listed in the proposed action). All

streams surveyed within the allotment exhibited high stream bank stability along the surveyed reaches.

However, there are short reaches of unstable channels along Willow Creek where trampling occurs. Willow

Creek experiences high flows during spring snow melt periods and thus is capable of eroding and

transporting larger amounts of exposed sediments. Due to the relatively higher concentration of livestock,

the areas of unstable channel reaches, and the potential for higher flows, the risk of increased sedimentation

in Willow Creek from implementing alternative 1 is considered moderate. Due to low concentrations of

livestock use in other areas of the allotment the risk of increased sedimentation along creeks within the

Stump Ranch, Domingo Creek, and Lower Warner Creek subwatersheds is considered low.

Residual pool depths and percent fines: The risk of increased percent fines is low to moderate. Survey data

collected from Warner, Willow and Domingo Creeks were below levels considered to be detrimental to fish

habitat. Domingo Creek is the only allotment-area stream that has multiple years of data collection.

Although sediment levels in Domingo Creek significantly increased from 2008 to 2009, they remained

below detrimental levels. Fine sediment values observed in Warner and Willow Creeks are indicative of

these streams’ geomorphic characteristics. Only one year of stream survey data is available for Willow

Creek which is where livestock have typically concentrated in the allotment in the past. Since multiple year

data is not available to indicate a trend in sedimentation, the risk of increased percent fines resulting from

grazing is considered to be moderate where grazing occurs along Willow Creek based on a relatively higher

concentration of livestock use and existing short reaches of unstable channels. Due to low concentrations of

livestock use in other areas of the allotment the risk of increased percent fines within creeks resulting from

livestock use within the Stump Ranch, Domingo Creek, and Lower Warner Creek subwatersheds is

considered low.

Bank stability: The risk of adverse effects to bank stability is considered low. Stream bank trampling may

increase sediments entering stream channels. Bank stability data indicate moderately to highly-stable banks

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


along surveyed reaches. Proposed management strategies that disperse livestock, such as placement of salt

or mineral supplements one-quarter mile from stream channels or other special aquatic features, and herding,

would help reduce adverse effects. Bank stability trends are expected to remain constant under alternative 1.

Water quality: Risk of livestock waste affecting water quality is low. Limits on the number of calf/cow

pairs and low AUM/acre would reduce risks to beneficial uses. Studies in Mediterranean climates show that

the distance fecal coliform travels from where it is deposited is low, thus it is in areas immediately adjacent

to the stream that are of greatest concern in terms of introducing pathogens into the stream. Management

strategies that disperse livestock, such as placement of salt blocks and mineral supplements one quarter mile

from streams, springs and water developments; fences; and herd movement are all proposed under

alternative 1 and would help minimize this concern. As a result of the proposed management strategies and

the implementation of BMP monitoring, alternative 1 is not expected to impair water quality except where

livestock have direct access to surface waters. It would be expected that the beneficial uses of North Fork

Feather River would be maintained in the Feather River Allotment subwatersheds and likely improved at the

specific sites that would be closed or restricted to livestock. These sites include upper Warner Valley

drainage, Willow Lake, Domingo Lake and spring area, Mosquito Spring, Buzzard Spring, Domingo Springs

Campground, and Warner Valley Campground. The municipal and domestic water supply for developed

campgrounds at Domingo Springs and Warner Creek, and various recreation residences may have some

recreation contact and non-contact concerns. The authorization criteria and design features of the authorized

area in the term grazing permit would minimize the risk.

Adaptive management stipulations under alternative 1 would allow adjustment of cow/calf pair numbers

should watershed resources become heavily impacted. Meadow monitoring would ensure that

characteristics and special aquatic features are in Proper Functioning Condition as described in the proposed

action. BMP monitoring would ensure protection of water quality and beneficial uses. Additionally, the

areas closed to livestock use or those with limited use periods, as mentioned above, would result in

continued or improved watershed health within those areas.

Cumulative Effects: Cumulative watershed effects would remain low to moderate under this alternative.

Ground disturbances from livestock use that may affect watershed resources occupy a small portion relative

to the sixth-field subwatershed scale of this analysis. Impacts occur primarily where cattle concentrate in

meadows and other riparian areas. Impacts that do occur are at the site-scale rather than the subwatershed-

scale. Thus, when added to the combined effects of other land disturbing activities in the subwatersheds, the

risk for cumulative watershed effects based on the ERA model would remain low in the Willow Creek and

Lower Warner Creek subwatersheds and moderate in the Stump Ranch and Domingo Creek subwatersheds.

Since the ERA model does not differentiate the spatial location of activities in the subwatersheds, stream

survey data was used to assess cumulative effects of land disturbing activities on streams and riparian areas.

Data for the Warner Creek, Buzzard Spring and Willow Creek reaches are from a single year (2007) of data

collection. Domingo Creek has survey data for three separate years (2006, 2008, and 2009). Although a

trend cannot be established from the single-year data, the parameters measured along all surveyed reaches

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


indicate generally stable streams. The data for Domingo Creek indicated a stable stream as well but shows

fine sediment levels increased from 2008 to 2009. Given the increased sedimentation levels seen in

Domingo Creek, and the location of primary grazing areas in meadows and near-stream areas, there would

be a moderate risk of cumulative effects in the form of increased stream sedimentation in drainages where

livestock concentrate, particularly along Willow Creek.


Direct and Indirect Effects: A beneficial effect of this alternative would be recovery towards pre-livestock

grazing conditions. There would be no risk of compaction related to livestock use. Previously compacted

cattle trails and heavily used areas would recover towards pre-livestock grazing conditions. There would be

no risk of soil disturbance, vegetation removal, or creation of bare soil from livestock use. There would be

no risk of bank erosion and loss of bank stability related to livestock use. Bank instabilities related to past

livestock use would recover towards pre-livestock grazing conditions. There would be no risk of livestock

waste affecting water quality.

Cumulative Effects: Cumulative watershed effects would remain low to moderate as a result of ongoing

management activities other than livestock use. There would be no risk of livestock activities adding to

cumulative effects as livestock activities would cease. Historic livestock impacts would have a recovery

trend towards pre-livestock grazing conditions.


Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct and indirect effects would be similar to alternative 1; however,

Alternative 3 lacks a more defined grazing system and adaptive management stipulations that would allow

changes to the permit if adverse impacts were identified during use. The grazing season would be 15 days

longer (June 1 - October 15) and adaptive management options may require more environmental analysis

and thus more time to respond to changing resource conditions than alternative 1. Also, there would be no

fencing of Mosquito Springs or Domingo Lake springs area under this alternative, thus livestock would be

able to access these areas. This would have the effect of increasing the risk of degradation of water quality

and associated beneficial uses at these specific sites.

Cumulative Effects: Cumulative effects would be similar to alternative 1.


Direct and Indirect Effects: Grazing would be limited to the Willow Creek drainage under this alternative.

Direct and indirect effects in the Willow Creek subwatershed would be similar to alternative 1 although

effects would be lessened since a shorter grazing season, lower numbers, more limited utilization standards,

and a smaller defined grazing area would be applied. The number of livestock would be limited to 25

cow/calf pairs over a two and a half month period (June 1 - August 15) for at least three years. Utilization of

grass and grass-like plants would be limited to 30 percent. Monitoring would be used to determine if

flexibility regarding livestock numbers, season, or authorized area is appropriate, or if other adaptive options

including discontinuing grazing should be applied.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


The Stump Ranch, Domingo Creek, and Lower Warner Creek subwatersheds in the allotment would no

longer be authorized for grazing. The direct and indirect effects in these subwatersheds would be similar to

alternative 2 (no grazing) as they recover towards pre-livestock grazing conditions.

Cumulative Effects: Livestock grazing would be limited to the Willow Creek subwatershed. Cumulative

effects in this subwatershed would be similar to alternative 1. Cumulative effects in the Stump Ranch,

Domingo Creek, and Lower Warner Creek subwatersheds would be similar to alternative 2 (no grazing).

Effects to Botanical Species

This section summarizes the effects from the Biological Evaluation/Biological Assessment (BEBA) and the

Noxious Weed Risk Assessment prepared for this project.

a. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species:

The BEBA determined the following:

Alternative 1 (proposed action), alternative 2 (no grazing) or alternative 4 (reduced stocking) of the Feather

River Allotment Grazing Management Project will have no effects on any Sensitive plant species.

Alternative 3 (current/historic management) will have no effects on Scheuchzeria palustris. Its

implementation may affect individuals or habitat of Botrychium minganense, B. montanum, and B. pinnatum

at Domingo Lake but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing as Threatened or Endangered or

in a loss of viability for these species.


Direct and Indirect Effects: All known occurrences of Region 5 Sensitive plant species within the Feather

River Allotment are on the fen mats at Willow and Domingo Lakes (Scheuchzeria palustris) or along the

spring channel on the east side of Domingo Lake (Botrychium spp.). Since 2010, there has been an

exclosure fence across the Willow Creek corridor below Willow Lake, and alternative 1would install an

exclosure around the spring channel at Domingo Lake. Livestock would not have access to the Sensitive

plant sites, so implementation of the proposed action would have no direct or indirect effects to any Region 5

Sensitive plant species.

Cumulative Effects: Implementation of the proposed action would have no direct or indirect effects on

Region 5 Sensitive plants species, therefore there would be no cumulative effects either.


Direct and Indirect Effects: Under the no action alternative commercial livestock grazing would no longer

be authorized within Feather River Allotment. Whereas the Proposed Action would exclude cattle from

Willow and Domingo Lakes by fencing, the no action alternative would exclude cattle altogether.

Therefore, implementation of this alternative would, as with the proposed action, have no direct or indirect

effects on any Region 5 Sensitive plant species.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Cumulative Effects: Since implementation of the no action alternative would have neither direct nor indirect

effects on Region 5 Sensitive plants species, it would likewise have no cumulative effects.


Direct and Indirect Effects: Scheuchzeria palustris plants at Willow and Domingo Lakes occur on saturated,

more or less unstable fen mats in the lake margins and therefore have some degree of natural protection from

livestock. Livestock usage has been observed at Willow Lake in the past, but installation of fencing below

the lake in 2010 forestalls any future use. Nor are noxious weeds a concern with regard to Scheuchzeria

palustris, since weeds have never been found on fen mats anywhere in the Lassen National Forest.

Implementation of alternative 3 would not have any direct or indirect effects on Scheuchzeria palustris.

Although the continuance of grazing under alternative 3, as authorized in the 2009 permit, would include the

Willow Lake livestock exclosure, which was installed in 2010, Domingo Lake would have no fencing to

protect Botrychium plants. There is little forage around the lake and considerable brush and small tree

growth, and cattle rarely if ever visit it. During repeated visits to the rare plant habitat at the lake, no

evidence of livestock usage has been observed. Still, the spring channel that supplies perennially moist

habitat for Botrychium plants would attract any cattle that did find their way to the lake. Botrychium plants

are somewhat protected by their size: they may be too small (frequently only an inch or two high) to be

grazed. Though the aboveground parts of larger plants are subject to removal by grazing, there is little

formal research on the effects of grazing on Botrychium. Botrychium plants clearly tolerate some degree of

grazing, however it is unknown what amount or frequency of grazing is tolerable. It may well be that a more

serious risk to Botrychium plants than herbivory is trampling or soil churning, which can damage not only

evident aboveground plants but reproductive materials -sexual gametophytes, asexual gemmae, and

overwintering rhizomes -in the soil within an occurrence. The importance of these underground parts to the

Botrychium life cycle can make it difficult to know just how big any given population is, since some

individuals may not produce an aboveground plant, especially in dry years. Therefore, even if visible plants

are trampled, there may be undamaged plant material remaining in the ground to help the population survive.

Burial by cow feces poses a similar threat to individual Botrychium plants. Overall, Botrychium occurrences

at Domingo Lake seem to be healthy, even after many decades without any special protections from grazing

cattle. Without fencing, however, the possibility exists that impacts to Botrychium plants and their habitat

could occur.

Indirect effects (either positive or negative) on a plant species might involve changes in competition

interactions, vegetation structure, water availability, and competition from noxious weeds. The effects of

livestock-induced changes in competition and community structure on Botrychium at Domingo Lake would

likely be negligible, since the plants have means (overwintering rhizomes and belowground reproductive

parts) to wait out temporary changes in surface structure -indeed, the belowground parts of moonworts may

not send up shoots at all in unfavorable years. More serious indirect effects could arise if livestock traffic

were heavy enough to change the movement of water and/or the drainage of soil where Botrychium grows,

but heavy traffic is extremely unlikely at Domingo Lake and prevented by fencing at Willow Lake.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Scheuchzeria palustris plants at Willow and Domingo Lakes occur on saturated, more or less unstable fen

mats in the lake margins and therefore have some degree of natural protection from livestock. Livestock

usage has been observed at Willow Lake in the past, but installation of fencing below the lake in 2010

forestalls any future use.

An increase in noxious weeds or other undesirable non-native species is another potential indirect effect of

grazing activities; however, the likelihood of such effects in the Feather project area is low. No noxious

weeds are currently known in the vicinity of Willow and Domingo Lakes. Should weeds establish

themselves in the future, however, alternative 3 would include no Integrated Design Features to help ensure

control and/or removal of the weeds.

Although implementation of Alternative 3 would not have any direct or indirect effects on Scheuchzeria

palustris, effects on species of Botrychium would be possible, principally in the form of the direct effect of

trampling or the indirect effect of weed invasion. Such effects would likely be limited and transient and

unlikely to decrease the viability of Botrychium species in the Feather River project area.

Cumulative Effects: A cumulative effect can result from the incremental impact of the action when added to

the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Past activities are implicitly

considered by reviewing existing conditions, since these reflect the residual impacts of all prior human

actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. By

looking at current conditions now, we capture the effects of such actions and events collectively, regardless

of the contributions of particular actions or events.

Implementation of alternative 3 would entail no direct or indirect effects on Scheuchzeria palustris;

therefore, there would be no cumulative effects to this species. However, effects on the three species of

Botrychium are possible, though likely minor. The project area was chosen as the cumulative effects

analysis area for Botrychium species because their historic range and specific habitat requirements are

unknown, and it was assumed that if the Feather River project would not affect the viability of the species

within the project area, it would not affect their viability outside of the project area. The Botrychium

occurrences in the project area were only documented in 2009 and 2010, and their historic abundance in the

project area is unknown. Therefore, their condition since 2009 was used as the baseline condition for

analysis. Choosing 2009 as the baseline for analysis necessarily includes an extended history of grazing and

other activities. Although these historic activities cannot be quantified, they can be mentioned in a general

sense to put current conditions into perspective for this analysis. The threshold for this analysis is whether

the viability of any TES plant species in the project area would be maintained. Past, ongoing or future

vegetation treatments on private lands may have had cumulative impacts to the species under consideration

here, but since survey requirements and mitigations for their occurrences are not known, the nature and

extent of the impact to the species cannot be quantified.

Ongoing Actions: Ongoing vegetation management projects, special uses, and recreation projects on the

District have been surveyed to similar standards as the Feather River Project. As with the Feather River

Project, known occurrences of Sensitive plant species for which viability was a concern have either been

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


flagged and avoided by project activities or protected by integrated design features that minimize

impacts to known populations. Ongoing actions such as road maintenance and woodcutting contribute

only incidental, if any, effects to Botrychium minganense, B. montanum, and B. pinnatum. The impacts

of these activities are highly dispersed throughout the project area, and most would not occur within the

wet, more or less open places where Botrychium plants occur.

For plants of all three Botrychium species, recreation will have at most incidental effects. Recreation

within the Feather project area is dispersed, except for the summer homes, campgrounds, and paved

roads along the allotment’s southern and eastern margins, well removed from Botrychium habitats at

Domingo Lake. There is a dispersed campsite at Domingo Lake and, since alternative 3 would not

include a specific plan to fence the Botrychium occurrence area, recreational traffic could conceivably

cause impacts to Botrychium plants or augment impacts from livestock activity.

Foreseeable Future Actions: Future vegetation management actions would be surveyed to standards

similar to those of the Feather River project and any species for which viability was a concern would

either be avoided by project activities or mitigated by protect IDFs. At present, however, no actions are

planned for the Domingo Lake area, and therefore no foreseeable future action can be expected to add

cumulatively to the effects of grazing under alternative 3.

On the Lassen National Forest, Botrychium minganense is known from 38 occurrences, B. montanum from

44, and B. pinnatum from three. All three species, though rare, are widely distributed across western North

America, and most of the Lassen Botrychium occurrences appear to be stable. Although some effects on the

Botrychium occurrences at Domingo Lake are possible from recreation, woodcutting, and road maintenance,

as well as from livestock activity, the effects would be incidental at most and would not likely affect the

viability of the three Botrychium species or any other Sensitive plant species within the project area. In

addition, if impacts to these species or their habitats are discovered in the future, steps will be taken to

eliminate or mitigate these impacts so that the viability of these species will be maintained within the project

area and throughout their range.


Direct and Indirect Effects: The reduced stocking alternative is similar to the proposed action but with a

minimal stocking level, a more limited area authorized for grazing, and a shorter season. Implementation of

this alternative would, as with the proposed action, have no direct or indirect effects on any Region 5

Sensitive plant species.

Cumulative Effects: Since implementation of the reduced stocking alternative would have neither direct nor

indirect effects on Region 5 Sensitive plants species, it would likewise have no cumulative effects.

b. Noxious Weeds

Grazing management can affect weedy species’ spread by carrying seeds into new areas and by altering soil

cover conditions in ways favorable to weed establishment. This potential has existed in the project area for a

long time, and yet the area is largely free of weeds, due in part to the heavy forest and chaparral cover over

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


most of the landscape. There are only two noxious weed occurrences within the Feather River Allotment.

Of these, Canada thistle is considered a moderate priority for control and Klamathweed is considered a low

priority for control. Existing conditions within the project area are generally characterized by more or less

closed canopies that tend to discourage weed invasion, resulting in an area that is relatively weed-free. In

addition, the risk from habitat alteration or increased dispersal vectors as a result of project implementation

is considered low. Overall, with incorporation of integrated design features as part of the proposed action,

there is a low potential for weed spread with the implementation of the Feather River Allotment Grazing

Management Project for all alternatives.

Effects to Terrestrial Wildlife Species and Habitats

This section summarizes the wildlife effects from two supporting documents, the Biological

Evaluation/Biological Assessment (BEBA) for terrestrial wildlife and terrestrial species from the

Management Indicator Species (MIS) report prepared for this project.

The BEBA analyzes project effects to federally listed threatened (T) and endangered (E) species and also

considers project effects to Region 5 sensitive (S) species. The BEBA determined the following:

The project will not affect the following federally listed species or their designated critical habitat: Gray

Wolf, Northern Spotted Owl, Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle, Giant Garter Snake.

The project will not affect the following FS sensitive species: Great gray owl, Northern bald eagle,

Greater Sandhill Crane, Yellow Rail, California Wolverine, Pacific Fisher, Pallid Bat, Townsend’s Big-

eared Bat, Fringed myotis, Western Pond Turtle, and Shasta Hesperian snail.

The project may affect individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of

viability for the following species: California spotted owl, Northern goshawk, Willow flycatcher,

American marten, Sierra Nevada red fox, and Western bumblebee.

California Spotted Owl


Direct and Indirect Effects (Same for action alternatives 1, 3 and 4): There is a lack of primary range for

livestock within the densely forested areas. Nesting and foraging habitat of spotted owls is typically

comprised of forested stands with canopy cover greater than 40 percent in which little understory herbaceous

forage is present for livestock. Grazing is unlikely to directly affect owls as grazing activities occur outside

of protected activity centers (PACs) or other high quality habitat. Cattle usually avoid densely forested areas

due to a lack of forage. The dense stands preferred by spotted owls are almost devoid of the understory

herbaceous cover that would draw livestock. Key monitoring areas (places where the effects of grazing

might be most readily detected) and key foraging areas for livestock are outside of PACs and suitable

California spotted owl (CSO) habitat.

Although CSO habitat is unlikely to be grazed, given the parameters allowed, livestock grazing has the

potential to indirectly affect owls through prey species that depend on grasses. Although the northern flying

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


squirrel may utilize plants that cattle would consume, their main food sources are nuts (cone seeds) and

hypogeous fungi, neither of which would be affected by grazing. Foraging areas of cattle and flying

squirrels are also unlikely to overlap as cattle are rarely drawn to graze in forested areas. Occasionally

spotted owls will take ground squirrels, chipmunks, voles, deer mice and rabbits. All of these utilize grasses

and forbs consumed by cattle. It is assumed that reductions in vegetative height and cover could reduce

habitat quality for some small mammal and bird prey species consumed by the spotted owl. Effects of

grazing on small mammals are discussed in more detail above. Although the CSO may take other small

mammals that may be affected by grazing, their main prey item would not likely be affected. Therefore, for

most prey habitat, livestock grazing under all alternatives within this allotment would not present a large

negative effect due to the localized nature of grazing within the allotment. Because CSO eats a wide variety

of prey, grazing pressure on some small mammal species is not likely to affect the amount of prey available

and presents a low risk to the CSO.

Cumulative Effects (Same for action alternatives 1, 3 and 4): The CSO cumulative effects analysis area was

retained at the Feather River Allotment boundary. The cumulative effects analysis area was not extended

beyond the allotment boundaries because the primary range is in the interior of the allotment and isn’t shared

with neighboring allotments, and because of the negligible direct and indirect effects of the proposed

alternatives.

Past and future thinning operations, due to reductions in canopy cover within the thinned stands, could

reduce the amount of spotted owl nesting habitat within the allotment area. However, grazing in the

allotment would not cumulatively affect CSO as there would be no effects to nesting habitat.

As a result of factors such as fire suppression, timber harvest, and management that favors conifer cover

over other vegetation communities, the allotment area has seen a reduction of open areas that would have

provided quality forage for livestock. Aspen and meadow enhancement projects are designed to increase

herbaceous cover and aspen trees by reducing conifer encroachment into meadow and aspen stands, thus

increasing habitat for CSO prey species. These projects increase the amount of forage available to cattle,

which is why most of them are fenced for a period of three or more years to establish growth without

browsing. The increase in herbaceous plants would provide more foraging potential for cattle and other

ungulates which may reduce pressure on other existing grasses and plants. The enhancement of aspen and

meadows is beneficial for CSO and their prey. Therefore continued grazing would not add to negative

cumulative effects in this allotment.

In summary, alternatives 1, 3, and 4 would have little direct, indirect or cumulative effects to this species or

its habitat. The primary action relative to spotted owl habitat is to re-authorize and continue grazing within

this allotment, a practice that has been on-going in the area for over 100 years. There is no evidence that this

century’s old land use has been contributing to a trend towards listing or a loss of viability of this species on

the Forest. Direct or indirect effects to nesting habitat would likely be unaffected by continued grazing.

Potential for reduction in the quality of prey habitat would be very marginal and limited in scope across the

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


allotment. Therefore, alternative 1, 3, and 4 of the Feather River Allotment Project may affect individuals of

spotted owls, but are not likely to result in a trend towards federal listing or loss of species viability.


Direct and Indirect Effects: The direct and indirect effects of discontinuing grazing could potentially

increase conifer encroachment into meadows, thus decreasing area of meadow for some CSO prey species.

However, removal of cattle from meadows may also eliminate disturbance to other prey species and owls.

There would be no direct effects to current habitat conditions as a result of this alternative.

Due to lack of annual grazing, no annual reductions in vegetative height or density would result. This would

benefit the spotted owl foraging habitat within the allotment area, and provide additional herbaceous cover

and food for the small mammals that require tall vegetation.

Without annual over-utilization of aspen sprouts, as has routinely occurred in this allotment in the past, both

the aspen and the associated plant community would be able to regenerate. This would benefit spotted owls

by perpetuating these areas into the future and providing high valued habitat for some CSO prey.

Cumulative Effects: Current aspen and meadow enhancement projects are expected to improve meadow and

riparian conditions, thus increasing certain prey associated with meadows for the California spotted owl.


Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects: Similar effects for action alternatives 1, 3, and 4.



Northern Goshawk


Direct and Indirect Effects (Same for action alternatives 1, 3 and 4): There would be no effect to goshawk

nesting habitat as a result of these alternatives. There are three goshawk PACs near the key livestock areas.

Two of these are located on steep slopes near the top of the hill where cattle would not be traveling. Only

one is on flat ground near the Domingo Springs area and may be traversed. However, it is very unlikely that

the cattle would spend much time in the Domingo Spring area due to the large amounts of woody debris on

the forest floor, which would impede and tend to discourage the cattle from crossing through that area. Lack

of herbaceous cover would also make the area less desirable than unobstructed habitat.

Effects of livestock grazing on goshawk habitat would primarily result from grazing-induced changes to the

habitat of goshawk prey. Current understory development within goshawk foraging habitat throughout the

allotment is sufficiently sparse that livestock would not be attracted into these forested stands in any

numbers. Grazing within forested stands is primarily a result of cattle trailing from one area of primary

range or water source to another and is thus generally localized to those areas. Foraging goshawks would

cover much wider areas that would include dense forested stands and many areas of uplands distant from

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


livestock primary range in which livestock would not be expected to be present. Therefore, for most prey

habitat, livestock grazing under all alternatives within this allotment would not present a large negative

effect due to the localized nature of grazing within forested goshawk habitat.

Cumulative Effects (Same for action alternatives 1, 3 and 4): Past and current activities are summarized in

the cumulative effects for the California spotted owl. Because the direct and indirect effects to goshawk are

limited, there are no measurable cumulative effects.

In summary, the actions proposed under alternative 1, 3, and 4 would have little direct, indirect or

cumulative effects to this species or its habitat. The primary action relative to goshawk habitat is to re-

authorize and continue grazing within this allotment, a practice that has been on-going in the area for over

100 years. There is no evidence that this century’s old land use has been contributing to a trend towards

listing or a loss of viability of this species on the Forest. Direct or indirect effects to nesting habitat would

likely be unaffected by continued grazing. Potential for reduction in the quality of prey habitat that would

result from authorization of alternatives 1, 3, or 4, would be very marginal and limited in scope across the

allotment. Therefore, the proposed activities within alternatives 1, 3, and 4 of the Feather River Allotment

Project may affect individuals of northern goshawks, but are not likely to result in a trend towards federal

listing or loss of species viability.

2. Alternative 2 (No Grazing)

Direct and Indirect Effects: There would be no direct effects to current habitat conditions as a result of this

alternative. Indirect effects include a continuation of current vegetative trends across the analysis area. As a

result, conifers would continue to increase in density along the margins of the meadows and valleys within

the allotment, in time reducing the extent of these features.

Without annual over-utilization of aspen sprouts both the aspen and the associated plant community would

be able to regenerate. This would benefit goshawks by perpetuating these areas into the future, and

providing high valued habitat for woodpeckers and other avian species that serve as prey for this species.


riparian conditions, thus increasing prey availability for the Northern goshawk.





American Marten

Because marten would primarily be foraging in non-grazed areas, and would generally forage in the

forest/meadow interface on a much more limited basis, it is anticipated that neither of the alternatives 1, 3, or

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


4, would have substantial effect on marten survival. Potential for reduction in the quality of prey habitat

would be very marginal and limited in scope across the allotment.


Direct and Indirect Effects (Same for action alternatives 1, 3 and 4): Primary direct and indirect effects to

this species would be related to potential grazing-induced changes to prey populations through reductions of

vegetative cover. Small clearings, meadows and riparian areas provide foraging habitats for marten,

particularly during the snow-free seasons, but marten are most likely to use meadow edges than the meadow

interior. Of the prey species listed for American martin, herbaceous layers or grasses were not considered as

important for Douglas squirrel. Of the remaining, either grasses or herbaceous layers were considered

essential for voles and deer mice and secondarily essential or preferred for the others. Voles may be most

affected by loss of herbaceous cover. The alternatives are unlikely to directly affect marten as marten

typically inhabit denser stands were livestock forage is limited or non-existent. Predominate portions of the

allotment are either not grazed or only incidentally grazed. Direct or indirect effects to denning habitat

would likely be unaffected by continued grazing since denning habitat does not occur within the primary

livestock grazing areas.

Tall, dense cover may be beneficial to small mammals by providing moderation of humidity or moisture,

reducing penetration of light, or through indirect effects on temperature, plant growth, and soil moisture or

texture. Heavy cover prevents dense packing of snow, making subnivean (under snow) space more

hospitable. Grazing reduces this cover as well as the nutritional value of the vegetative and reproductive

portions of graminoids (grasses) and forbs. Greene (1995) found that voles chose areas which were moist,

and that had high plant cover and vegetative height, and found that grazing lowered all three habitat

variables and consequently reduced vole abundance. Kie and Loft (1990), suggest that montane voles and

western harvest mice would be adversely affected if herbaceous cover was reduced below 12 inches.

Grazing utilization on the allotment would thus be expected to reduce vegetative cover compared to the

ungrazed condition, and this loss of vegetative cover would likely degrade habitat for some small mammals

such as voles. Between the three alternatives, the higher stocking rates and greater acres of use offered

through alternative 3 would correspond to a likely greater pressure on marten prey abundance along the

forest/meadow interface. Alternative 1, with reduced stocking rates as compared with alternative 3, would

likely have fewer impacts.

Alternative 4, with the lowest initial stocking rates, reduced grazing area, and shorter grazing season, would

likely have the least impact on marten prey, and therefore, the least impact on marten. As cattle are most apt

to use openings where forage is readily available or areas adjacent to openings (for shade) the likelihood of

cattle encountering marten is very limited and therefore a very small risk.


the cumulative effects for the California spotted owl. The risk of direct and indirect effects is considered

very low as livestock use has very little overlap with marten habitat. Because the direct and indirect effects

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


are so limited the proposed actions are not likely to add measurable cumulative effects when past actions,

current activities, and current proposed actions are considered.

In summary, direct or indirect effects to denning habitat, from alternatives 1, 3, and 4, would likely be

unaffected by continued grazing. Potential for reduction in the quality of prey habitat from alternatives 1, 3,

and 4, would be very marginal and limited in scope across the allotment.




result, conifers would continue to increase in density along the margins of the meadows and valleys within

the allotment, in time reducing the extent of these features.


benefit prey species such as gophers and voles.

Without annual over-utilization of aspen sprouts, as has routinely occurred in this allotment in the past, both

the aspen and the associated plant community would be able to regenerate. This would benefit marten by

perpetuating these areas into the future, and providing high valued habitat for the marten as cover and for

prey.


riparian conditions, thus increasing prey availability and foraging habitat for the American marten.





Sierra Nevada Red Fox


Direct and Indirect Effects (Same for action alternatives 1, 3 and 4): The effects upon the Sierra Nevada red

fox (SNRF) are similar to those described above for the marten, but red fox are thought to be much more

dependent on the meadow component of the habitat for providing prey for the species. Because red fox

inhabit higher elevations during the summer, generally within Lassen Volcanic National Park, there is little

risk of livestock/fox interaction as the SNRF is largely absent from the project area during the time livestock

are on. Many of their prey depend on grasses for forage and cover and therefore reductions in grasses could

have an indirect impact on red fox.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Current livestock grazing does not occur at the intensity of the past, and some rodent populations (pocket

gophers and Belding ground squirrel) could actually increase depending on changes in grazing practices.

For red fox, the pocket gopher is an important food during the summer and autumn.

Grazing utilization on the Feather River Allotment could be expected to reduce vegetative cover compared

to the ungrazed condition. However, under the proposed management strategies of alternatives 1, 3, and 4

for this allotment, that indirect effect would be minimized due to proposed management standards and

objectives which would monitor and limit the extent of grazing pressure within the allotment.

There are no predictable direct effects as the SNRF is largely absent from the project area during the time

livestock would be present. Indirect effects are limited to the effect that livestock grazing may have on prey

habitat. Of the rodents present that fox are known to prefer, voles would be most likely affected by grazing.

As discussed earlier, livestock are unlikely to have much effect on coniferous habitats as cattle are more

drawn to areas with both forage and water, which are generally lacking in forest habitats that the fox prefers

in the winter.

Between the three alternatives of 1, 3, and 4, the higher stocking rates and greater acres of use offered

through alternative 3, would correspond to a likely greater pressure on SNRF prey abundance along the

forest/meadow interface. Alternative 1, with reduced stocking rates, as compared with alternative 3, would

likely have fewer impacts. Alternative 4, with the lowest initial stocking rates, reduced grazing area, and

shorter grazing season, would likely have the least impact on SNRF prey and the least impact on Sierra

Nevada Red Fox.

Therefore, alternatives 1, 3 and 4 would likely have limited adverse effects to the prey species. Direct or

indirect effects to denning habitat would likely be unaffected by continued grazing. Based on monitoring

and established Forest standards and guidelines, potential for reduction in the quality of SNRF prey habitat

would be minimized and limited in scope across the allotments.


the cumulative effects for the California spotted owl. Because the risk of indirect effects is very low, there

are no predictable cumulative effects to add to past projects and projects currently being planned.

Fire suppression over the past 100 years has resulted in the encroachment of tree cover into meadow habitat.

In the Feather River Allotment, the increased tree cover could increase the number of chipmunks and tree

squirrels using these habitats. Thus, lack of fire might simply shift prey abundance from meadow voles to

gophers and squirrels. This shift would still be beneficial to red fox as all these species are already

important components of the red fox diet.

Current aspen and meadow enhancement projects are expected to improve meadow and riparian conditions,

thus increasing prey availability for the Sierra Nevada red fox.

In summary, alternatives 1, 3, and 4 would have little direct, indirect or cumulative effects to this species or

its habitat. The primary action relative to Sierra Nevada red fox habitat is to re-authorize and continue

grazing within this allotment, a practice that has been on-going in the area for over 100 years. There is no

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


evidence that this century’s old land use has been contributing to a trend towards listing or a loss of viability

of this species on the Forest. Direct or indirect effects to denning habitat would likely be unaffected by

continued grazing. Potential for reduction in the quality of prey habitat would be very marginal and limited

in scope across the allotment. Therefore, alternative 1, 3, and 4 of the Feather River Allotment Project may

affect individuals of Sierra Nevada red fox, but are not likely to result in a trend towards federal listing or

loss of species viability.




result, conifers would continue to increase in density along the margins of the meadows, encroaching into

the meadows and valleys within the allotment, in time reducing the extent of these features.


benefit SNRF foraging habitat within the allotment area, and provide additional herbaceous cover and food

for prey.

Without annual over-utilization of aspen sprouts both the aspen and the associated plant community would

be able to regenerate. This would benefit SNRF by perpetuating these areas into the future, and providing

high valued habitat for SNRF prey species.


riparian conditions, thus increasing prey availability for the Sierra Nevada red fox.


Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects: Similar effects for Action Alternatives 1, 3, and 4.


Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects: Similar effects for Action Alternatives 1, 3, and 4.

Willow Flycatcher


Direct and Indirect Effects: There have been no detections of willow flycatcher on National Forest System

(NFS) lands within the Feather River Allotment. All eight detections in the Willow Lake area have been

observed on private land. Since there are no occupied territories on NFS lands within the allotment, there

would not be any direct effects of grazing to willow flycatchers on the Lassen National Forest. If nests are

identified in the future, cattle in the Willow Lake and Willow Creek drainage could have direct impacts on

willow flycatchers by knocking over flycatcher nests.

There is suitable habitat on NFS lands adjacent to the private land. Cattle grazing within this area could

potentially indirectly affect willow flycatchers by altering willow habitat, shrub vigor, and spatial pattern

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


through browsing, grazing, and trampling the vegetation. Currently, however, it appears that grazing use is

less than 20 percent and willows are growing abundantly.

This alternative would also restrict cattle from drifting in the highly sensitive areas such as upper Willow

Lake. Close monitoring and adaptive management would decrease the amount and occurrences of drifting

cattle.

The presence of cattle grazing in close proximity to occupied nest sites may provide a risk of cowbird brood

parasitism by attracting cow birds to the area. However, cowbirds appear to be in much lower numbers

when associated with livestock foraging on native meadow herbaceous vegetation, which is the situation for

this allotment. Cowbirds have been observed in the Willow Lake area, but no parasitism of nests on nearby

private lands has been identified. As stated above, no willow flycatcher nests have been identified on NFS

lands on the allotment.

In all three action alternatives (1, 3, and 4), disturbance to willow flycatchers and their habitat would be

greatest near the Willow Lake fence and within the adjoining private land. Salt blocks would be placed

away from this habitat to reduce congregation in the riparian areas. Although cattle have been allowed to

move through part of the willow flycatcher habitat, grazing use appears to be low and degradation of the

willow habitat has been limited.

In summary, the risk to willow flycatchers on NFS lands is low, as all currently identified willow flycatcher

territories are outside of the NFS key areas for grazing and are on private land, and current impacts on

willow habitat are limited.


the cumulative effects for the California spotted owl. Since the risk to the willow flycatcher population on

NFS lands is low under all of the action alternatives, and the current impacts on willow habitat are limited,

the potential for cumulative effects is low.

Aspen enhancement projects along the Willow Creek drainage include conifer removal from aspen stands

and fencing around aspen suckers to establish growth without browsing from cattle and deer. The aspen

enhancement projects would benefit riparian vegetation and increase the amount of browse available to

cattle and deer. There would be no cumulative effects from grazing, as all of these activities are designed to

enhance herbaceous vegetation and riparian habitats.

In the 1990s there were flooding events that resulted in degraded conditions in the Willow, Domingo, and

Buzzard stream areas. Stream improvement projects were implemented and have contributed to improved

hydrologic function. The flooding may have altered or temporarily prevented willow flycatcher habitat from

expanding.


Direct and Indirect Effects: This alternative would not allow grazing; therefore there would be no

disturbance to individuals or nests and no impacts to meadow or willow habitats. No grazing would allow

growth and vigor in willows and possibly allow expansion along Willow Creek, thus increasing suitable

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


habitat for the willow flycatcher. It may also allow expansion of willow flycatcher territories onto NFS

lands.

Cumulative Effects: Past flooding events have altered the stream areas and willow habitat. Future flooding

events may occur, but health and vigor of the riparian habitat along the stream as a result of no grazing

would increase hardiness of vegetation and have less risk of degradation. Since there are no direct or

indirect effects, there are no cumulative effects.


Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative 3 would have the greatest impact of all the alternatives due to the

greater stocking rate, the longer grazing season, and the lack of restrictions in the sensitive areas. This could

potentially allow more cattle on the land which would invariably increase browsing, grazing, trampling and

disturbance to nesting willow flycatchers and riparian habitat. This alternative may indirectly affect willow

habitat by grazing more hardwoods later in the season. This would be mitigated by only allowing 20 percent

grazing use of the riparian habitat. Continued grazing could potentially limit willow flycatchers ability to

expand their range onto NFS lands and successful willow flycatcher breeding may eventually be confined to

the closed area north of the 2010 fence (FEFR3r). As in alternative 1, there would be no direct impacts, as

there are no identified willow flycatcher territories on NFS lands.

Cumulative effects: Similar effects for action alternatives 1, 3, and 4.


Direct and Indirect: Alternative 4 would have the least impact on riparian habitat with reduced stocking

rates and a shorter grazing period. This alternative would still directly affect nesting willow flycatchers on

the private lands as the grazing period overlaps the nesting season. However, with the small number of

cattle on the allotment there may be less impact. With reduced stocking rates there would be more meadow

forage available to the cattle, which may reduce travel in the willows and riparian areas. As in alternative 1,

there would be no direct impacts, as there are no identified willow flycatcher territories on NFS lands.

Cumulative Effects: Similar effects for action alternatives 1, 3, and 4.

Western Bumblebee


Direct and Indirect Effects (Same for action alternatives 1, 3 and 4): Grazing within the Feather River

Allotment would overlap with bumblebee worker peak abundance in July and August and with the flowering

plants season. Cattle may directly affect bumblebees by trampling and disturbing rodent burrows within the

meadow.

There is a possibility that flowering plants and shrubs may get crushed or grazed by cattle. The cattle would

utilize the Willow Creek drainage in alternatives 1, 3, and 4 and may have drifting cattle in Buzzard Springs

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


and Domingo Springs in alternatives 1 and 3. Cattle tend to congregate along riparian corridors for the

majority of the season, therefore having less of an impact on all flowering plants within the meadow.

Alternative 3 would have the largest impact on bumblebee habitat due to the potentially greater number of

authorized cattle and the longest grazing season when compared to alternatives 1 and 4. Those two factors

would contribute towards increased disturbance to rodent burrows and flowering plants. Alternative 4 would

have the least impact on bumblebees because of the very low stocking rate and decreased season of grazing.

Alternative 1 has a low stocking rate but longer authorized grazing season which would result in a greater

impact on burrows and flowering plants when compared to alternative 4.

In summary, all three of these alternatives may affect western bumblebees, but the level at which they are

affected depends on the stocking levels. With alternative 3 there may be a higher risk to bumblebees and

their habitat due to potentially greater stocking rates within the area. With more cattle on the ground there

would be more disturbance and damage to rodent burrows and flowering plants. Alternative 3 would pose a

moderate risk to western bumblebees and their habitat.

Alternative 1 and 4 would have the least risk with reduced stocking levels. Although these alternatives may

affect bumblebees and their habitat, the migration and congregation of cattle along some riparian habitats

may put less pressure on meadows and flowering plants. The risk to bumblebee individuals and habitat is

moderate to low as cattle would not be fenced in a certain area, but allowed to move throughout authorized

areas of the allotment decreasing the amount of damage on any one particular area.

Cumulative Effects (Same for action alternatives 1, 3 and 4): Overall, the LNF offers a relatively secure

environment in support of the western bumble bee. Two major threats to the species, pesticide use and

introduced pathogens from commercial agricultural operations, are not allowed in conjunction with Forest

projects. There are no agricultural operations in or near the allotment, thus reducing the risk of pesticides.

Additionally, the loss of habitat to development is also minimal within the LNF boundaries.

Aspen and meadow enhancement projects within the allotment remove encroaching conifers to increase

sunlight and decrease competition. The result is an increase in riparian and meadow habitat that would be

beneficial to the bumblebees. These projects would not add any negative cumulative effects.


Direct and Indirect Effects: While there are consequences of inaction, alternative 2 would not directly affect

western bumble bee or its habitat. There is greater potential for conifer encroachment into meadows from a

lack of grazing and trampling on seedlings with alternative 2. This may indirectly affect bumblebees by

reducing meadow habitat available in the long run.

Cumulative Effects: Meadow enhancement projects in the allotment would remove conifers encroaching

into meadows. This would positively affect the bumblebees by increasing its habitat.



______________________________________________________________________________________________________




Effects to Aquatic Species and Habitats

Cascades frog (Rana cascadae), and Black juga


Direct Effects (Same for action alternatives 1, 3 and 4): There would be a low risk of direct effects upon

Cascades frogs, and moderate risk of direct effects upon black juga, resulting from grazing activities proposed

under alternatives 1, 3, and 4. Trampling from livestock would be the most likely way Cascades frogs and black

juga would be directly affected under these alternatives.

Livestock would have direct access to perennial waters under alternatives 1, 3, and 4. Given that Cascades frogs

and black juga both utilize perennial waters as habitat, there is potential for livestock to come into direct contact

with the aforementioned species. Cascades frogs are considered to be at low risk of coming into direct contact

with livestock due to the lack of confirmed sightings within the allotment area over several years’ worth of

surveys conducted by Fellers and others, and California Academy of Sciences (CAS). The nearest known extant

population of Cascades frogs is located in Warner Valley near the eastern boundary of the allotment area.

However, potential effects of livestock grazing upon this population are not considered in this document given

that Warner Valley is located outside of the allotment area. Fences currently in place would restrict livestock

from accessing fens within the allotment area (Willow Lake and Domingo Lake). Livestock exclusion from

these fens would preserve the most suitable habitat for Cascades frogs within the allotment area.

Surveys for black juga have not been conducted for all perennial waters within the allotment area, except within

the North Fork Feather River. Black juga currently occupy the North Fork Feather River, and all other perennial

waters within the allotment area are hydrologically connected to this river. Therefore, it is assumed black juga

currently occupy all perennial waters within the allotment area. Under this assumption, there would be a

moderate risk of livestock trampling black juga when they wade into perennial waters. Perennial streams that

would be affected under alternatives 1 and 3 include the North Fork Feather River, Domingo Creek, Willow

Creek, Warner Creek, and various springs associated with these streams. Only Willow Creek and its associated

springs would be affected under implementation of alternative 4.

In summary, implementation of alternatives 1, 3, or 4 within the Feather River Allotment would have a low risk

of directly affecting Cascades frogs and moderate risk of directly affecting black juga via livestock trampling.

Indirect Effects (Same for action Alternatives 1, 3 and 4): The two risks associated with livestock grazing that

may indirectly affect Cascades frogs and black juga, or their respective potentially suitable habitats include 1)

increased sedimentation of potentially suitable habitats as a result of ground disturbance, and 2) degradation of

water quality within potentially suitable habitats as a result of livestock defecation, namely reductions in

dissolved oxygen.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Effects to Sediment: Livestock grazing activity alongside stream banks can lead to loss of groundcover,

increased soil compaction, and elevated water turbidity. Increased sediment deposition could be expected as

a result of sediment input into allotment-area streams. Though Cascades frogs are unlikely to be adversely

affected by increased water turbidity in main stream channels (this species is often found in streams with

relatively high volumes of benthic fine sediment), tadpole feeding efficiency may be impaired as a result of

increased water turbidity. Black juga may be adversely affected by increased sediment deposition. When

fine sediment settles on coarse substrates (i.e., cobbles and bedrock), it makes the habitat unsuitable for

supporting black juga.

There would be a low to moderate risk of increased sedimentation of allotment-area streams under

alternatives 1, 3, and 4. However, implementation of allowable use standards would aid in preventing

sedimentation from reaching levels that would significantly harm Cascades frog tadpoles or black juga, or

lead to a significant decline in potentially suitable habitat for these species. Allowable use standards that

would affect allotment-area streams include the following:

• Streamside stubble height (4 inches)

• Stream bank disturbance and required stability (20 percent)

Middle and lower Willow Creek are the key areas most likely to be adversely affected by livestock grazing,

given that the cattle within Feather River Allotment typically gravitate to that area. All areas would be

monitored under action alternatives. Action for grazing management options would be quicker to implement

under alternative 1 since adaptive management strategies would be incorporated into the grazing permit;

actions would be slower to implement under alternatives 3 due to adaptive management strategies not being

incorporated into the grazing permit under these alternatives. Since livestock grazing would be restricted to

the Willow Creek subwatershed under alternative 4, the focus would be on monitoring middle and lower

Willow Creek key areas under this alternative.

Despite implementation of allowable use standards, it is likely that cattle grazing along stream banks and

cattle wading into streams would increase water turbidity and sedimentation. This would have an adverse

effect upon black juga, and may potentially have adverse effects upon larval forms of Cascades frogs if they

are present within allotment-area streams.

Effects to Water Quality: Organic nutrient input into allotment-area streams can lead to significant

increases in microorganism populations that in turn can reduce dissolved oxygen. In some cases, dissolved

oxygen levels can drop below levels deemed necessary to sustain aquatic organisms such as Cascades frog

tadpoles and black juga. Across the allotment area, there would be a low risk of water quality degradation to

the point where it would adversely affect Cascades frog tadpoles and black juga.

In the past, livestock within the Feather River Allotment typically resided within the Willow Creek

subwatershed for the majority of the allotment season. Therefore, adverse effects to aquatic resources are

most likely to occur within the Willow Creek area. Cascades frogs once inhabited Willow Creek, with the

most recent CAS specimens collected from this area dating back to 1960. Though Cascades frogs have not

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


been detected in Willow Creek during surveys in the 1990s and 2000s, habitat within and adjacent to the

stream is still considered suitable for supporting Cascades frogs.

Surveys for black juga have not been conducted in Willow Creek. Since the stream provides cool, perennial

flows deemed suitable for supporting black juga, it is assumed the species may be present in the stream and

its associated springs.

Given the relatively low numbers of cattle permitted under alternatives 1, 3, and 4, the risk of organic matter

input resulting from cattle defecation reaching levels that would significantly reduce oxygen levels in

Willow Creek or its associated springs is considered low. Alternative 1 calls for a permit limit of 258

Animal Unit Months (AUMs), with permit limits of 565 AUMs for Alternative 3 and 84 AUMs for

alternative 4 (NFS and private lands). These values are consistent with the AUMs on grazing allotments

studied by Roche and others, in which none of the grazed “key areas” that were studied had nutrient levels

high enough to the point to trigger eutrophication (which is directly correlated with increased biological

oxygen demand (BOD)). Key grazing areas in the Roche study were all found to be at least an order of

magnitude below levels of ecological concern. Therefore, it is estimated that grazing activities described

under alternatives 1, 3, and 4 for the Feather River Allotment would have a low risk of adversely affecting

water quality to the detriment of Cascades frogs or black juga. If adverse effects were to occur, they would

most likely be limited to Willow Creek where the majority of grazing activity occurs.

In summary, implementation of alternatives 1, 3, or 4 within the Feather River Allotment would have a low

to moderate risk of imparting adverse, indirect effects upon potentially suitable habitats for Cascades frog

and black juga. There would be a low to moderate risk of increased sedimentation within allotment-area

streams due to increased soil compaction and decreased riparian vegetation cover from livestock grazing

along stream banks, particularly along Willow Creek and its associated springs. Given the relatively low

numbers of livestock proposed under alternatives 1, 3, and 4, implementation of any of these alternatives

would result in a low risk of adversely affecting water quality to the point of making potentially suitable

habitat unsuitable for Cascades frogs or black juga.

Cumulative Effects (Same for action alternatives 1, 3 and 4): On a worldwide basis, acid precipitation,

ultraviolet radiation, and global climate change have all been suggested as causes to the decline of amphibians.

Within the Lassen region, more acute causes of decline for amphibians include the introduction of non-native

predatory fishes into Cascades frog habitat, chytridiomycosis (an infectious disease among amphibians),

extended drought conditions resulting in reduced habitat quality, and loss of potential breeding habitat through

conifer encroachment upon wet meadows.

Within the Feather River Allotment area, ongoing activities near aquatic habitats include recreational use on

NFS lands and cattle grazing on non-NFS lands within the allotment area. Summer homes located along the

North Fork Feather River and Willow Creek can promote increased soil compaction and loss of riparian

vegetation as a result of visitor traffic along stream banks. In turn, increased stream sedimentation may be

occurring adjacent to these homesites. Dispersed camping along portions of Willow Creek and Domingo Creek

may also increase near-stream soil compaction. Grazing on non-NFS lands within the allotment area occurs as a

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


result of cattle drifting and/or permits granted by private landowners, namely on private lands immediately

southeast of Willow Lake.

Recreational activities on NFS lands may contribute to increased sedimentation of allotment-area streams, yet

these activities are unlikely to produce sediment exceeding levels produced by livestock grazing adjacent to

streams. However, grazing on non-NFS lands within the allotment area would likely lead to measurable

increases in stream sedimentation. This would be most evident on Willow Creek, where grazing has historically

been permitted on private lands immediately southeast of Willow Lake. As a result, there would be a moderate

risk of cumulative effects (increased stream sedimentation) upon potentially suitable habitat for Cascades frogs

and black juga within perennial streams of the allotment area, particularly Willow Creek.

In summary, implementation of alternatives 1, 3, or 4 of the Feather River Allotment would have a moderate risk

of sedimentation of potentially suitable habitat for Cascades frogs and black juga when added to past, present,

and reasonably foreseeable actions within allotment-area subwatersheds. The Willow Creek subwatershed

would be most impacted of the subwatersheds within the allotment area, due to permitted livestock grazing on

private lands surrounding Willow Creek near Willow Lake.


Direct Effects: There would be no direct effects upon Cascades frogs or black juga with implementation of

alternative 2, as livestock grazing would no longer be permitted on federal lands within the Feather River

Allotment. There would be no risk of livestock coming into direct contact with Cascades frogs or black juga.

Indirect Effects: No indirect effects upon Cascades frogs or black juga, or their potentially suitable habitats,

would occur under alternative 2. Livestock grazing would no longer be permitted on federal lands within the

allotment area. With the removal of livestock, stream sedimentation resulting from livestock grazing along

stream banks would diminish as riparian vegetation recovered from past grazing activities. Water quality trends

would no longer be affected by the presence of livestock. Meadows and wetlands within the allotment would

see an upward trend in conditions as they recover from past livestock use.

Cumulative Effects: Grazing activities would no longer occur under alternative 2. There would be no direct or

indirect effects from grazing activities on Cascades frogs or black juga, or their respective potentially suitable

habitat. Therefore, alternative 2 would impose no cumulative effects upon the aforementioned species or their

respective habitats.


Direct and Indirect Effects: Same for action alternatives 1, 3 and 4.

Cumulative Effects: Same for action Alternatives 1, 3 and 4.


Direct and Indirect Effects: Same for action alternatives 1, 3 and 4.

Cumulative Effects: Same for action alternatives 1, 3 and 4.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Effects to Management Indicator Species (MIS) Habitat

A review of habitat for management indicator species was completed for this project. The MIS selected for project-

level MIS analysis for the Feather River Allotment Project are: aquatic macroinvertebrates, yellow warbler, and

Pacific tree frog.

Lacustrine/Riverine Habitat (Aquatic Macroinvertebrates)

1. Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), and Alternative 3

Direct Effects to Habitat: Livestock grazing under alternatives 1 and 3 would result in direct effects upon

benthic macroinvertebrate habitat via streambed trampling/alteration. Disturbance of streambeds may result in

reductions in available habitat for benthic macroinvertebates, or in some cases may promote habitat

heterogeneity in otherwise homogeneous habitats (i.e., streambed alterations within flat-bottomed sections of

streams). As a result, it is uncertain whether these streambed alterations would adversely affect habitat for

aquatic macroinvertebrates.

Indirect Effects to Habitat: When assessing indirect effects upon macroinvertebrate habitat, three habitat factors

are considered: stream flow, sedimentation, and water surface shade. These factors are analyzed and discussed

below.

Stream flow: No alterations to stream flow are anticipated as a result of implementation of alternatives 1 or

3. Livestock numbers would not be high enough to produce measurable declines in stream flow as a result

of water consumption. No water irrigations are proposed under alternatives 1 or 3.

Sedimentation: Implementation of alternatives 1 or 3 would result in a moderate risk of stream channel

sedimentation as a result of stream bank trampling and reductions in groundcover. Livestock grazing

activity along stream banks can lead to loss of groundcover, increased soil compaction, and elevated water

turbidity. Increased sediment deposition could be expected as a result of sediment input into allotment-area

streams, particularly in Domingo Creek and Willow Creek where most grazing is likely to occur. When fine

sediment settles upon coarse substrates, it can fill interstitial spaces between larger particles and thus reduce

available habitat for many benthic macroinvertebrate species. However, given the relatively low numbers of

livestock proposed under alternatives 1 and 3, it is unlikely that implementation of these alternatives would

result in long-term adverse effects upon benthic macroinvertebrate habitat within the allotment area.

Water surface shade: Alterations to stream channel shade resulting from implementation of alternatives 1 or

3 would be negligible, and would not affect stream temperatures. Heavy grazing has been shown to

significantly decrease riparian plant abundance and increase stream channel width. In turn, heavy grazing

could result in significant declines in stream channel shade. However, given that livestock numbers would

remain relatively low under alternatives 1 and 3, it is unlikely that livestock would reduce streamside

vegetation or increase channel widening to the point where a measurable decline in stream channel shade

could be detected.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Cumulative Effects to Habitat in the Analysis Area: As stated under indirect effects, the greatest concern

resulting from livestock grazing activities is potential increases in sedimentation within suitable

macroinvertebrate habitat. The risk of increased sedimentation resulting from grazing activities combining with

effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions within the project area is considered moderate. Land

management activities around allotment-area streams mostly consist of recreational use by Forest visitors, with

near-stream camping resulting in increased soil compaction near streams and potential reductions in

groundcover. However, these near-stream campsites are limited in size and use, and are unlikely to produce

measurable volumes of sediment by themselves to allotment-area streams.

In summary, the risk of cumulative effects under alternatives 1 and 3 resulting from proposed grazing activities

and past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities affecting macroinvertebrate habitat within and adjacent to

the allotment area is considered moderate.


Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat: Under this alternative, grazing activities would no longer occur on NFS

lands within the allotment area. Impacts associated with historic grazing activities, such as trampled banks and

stream sedimentation, would gradually return to pre-livestock grazing conditions. This would result in improved

habitat conditions for aquatic macroinvertebrates within the allotment area.

Cumulative Effects to Habitat: The removal of livestock from NFS lands within the allotment area would not

accentuate negative cumulative effects upon aquatic macroinvertebrate habitat

When considering that implementation of alternative 2 would have no negative cumulative effects upon aquatic

macroinvertebrate habitat within the allotment area, there would be no negative cumulative effects upon aquatic

macroinvertebrate habitat at the bioregional scale.


Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects: Similar effects as alternative 1.


Direct Effects to Habitat: Similar to direct effects outlined under alternatives 1 and 3, livestock grazing under

alternative 4 would result in direct effects upon benthic macroinvertebrate habitat via streambed

trampling/alteration. However, under alternative 4 all direct effects would be limited to the Willow Creek

drainage. Perennial waters outside of Willow Creek would not be affected under implementation of alternative

4. Disturbance of the Willow Creek streambed may result in reductions in available habitat for benthic

macroinvertebrates, or in some cases may promote habitat heterogeneity in otherwise homogeneous habitats

(i.e., streambed alterations within flat-bottomed sections of streams). As a result, it is uncertain whether these

streambed alterations would adversely affect habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates in Willow Creek. Compared

to alternatives 1 and 3, the reduced numbers of livestock permitted under alternative 4 would equate to less

impacts upon streambeds via livestock trampling.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Indirect Effects to Habitat: When assessing indirect effects upon macroinvertebrate habitat, three habitat factors

are considered: stream flow, sedimentation, and water surface shade. These factors are analyzed and discussed

below.

Stream flow: No alterations to stream flow are anticipated as a result of implementation of alternative 4.

Livestock numbers would not be high enough to produce measurable declines in stream flow as a result of

water consumption. No water irrigations are proposed under alternative 4.

Sedimentation: Implementation of alternative 4 would result in a low to moderate risk of stream channel

sedimentation within Willow Creek. Sedimentation would occur as a result of stream bank trampling and

reductions in groundcover. Given that grazing would only be permitted within the Willow Creek

subwatershed, perennial waters outside of the Willow Creek subwatershed would not be affected under

implementation of alternative 4. As mentioned for alternatives 1 and 3, increased sediment deposition could

be expected as a result of sediment input into Willow Creek. However, due to the limited numbers of

livestock permitted under alternative 4 (roughly two-thirds of the permitted amount under alternative 1) and

shortened grazing season, sediment production under alternative 4 would be less than under alternatives 1

and 3. It is unlikely that implementation of alternative 4 would result in long-term adverse effects upon

benthic macroinvertebrate habitat within Willow Creek.

Water surface shade: Alterations to stream channel shade resulting from implementation of alternative 4

would be negligible, and would not affect stream temperatures. Only Willow Creek would have the

potential to be affected by livestock grazing under alternative 4, and no grazing would be permitted outside

of the Willow Creek subwatershed. Given that livestock numbers would be low (roughly two-thirds the

number proposed under alternative 1), it is unlikely that livestock would reduce streamside vegetation or

increase channel widening to the point where a measurable decline in stream channel shade could be

detected.

Cumulative Effects to Habitat in the Analysis Area: As stated under indirect effects, the greatest concern

resulting from livestock grazing activities is potential increases in sedimentation within suitable

macroinvertebrate habitat. The risk of increased sedimentation resulting from grazing activities combining with

effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions within the project area is considered moderate. Land

management activities around allotment-area streams mostly consist of recreational use by Forest visitors, with

near-stream camping resulting in increased soil compaction near streams and potential reductions in

groundcover. However, these near-stream campsites are limited in size and use, and are unlikely to produce

measurable volumes of sediment by themselves to allotment-area streams.

In summary, the risk of cumulative effects under alternative 4 resulting from proposed grazing activities and

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities affecting macroinvertebrate habitat within and adjacent to the

allotment area is considered low to moderate.

Summary of Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale: The Lassen NF LRMP (as

amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires bioregional-scale Index of Biological Integrity and Habitat

monitoring for aquatic macroinvertebrates; hence, the lacustrine and riverine effects analysis for the allotment

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


project must be informed by these monitoring data. The sections below summarize the Biological Integrity and

Habitat status and trend data for aquatic macroinvertebrates. This information is drawn from the detailed

information on habitat and population trends in the 2010 Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional MIS Report which is

hereby incorporated by reference.

Habitat and Index of Biological Integrity Status and Trend. Aquatic habitat has been assessed using

Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) data collected since 1994 and habitat status information from the Sierra

Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP). Moyle and Randall (1996) developed a watershed index of biotic

integrity (IBI) based on distributions and abundance of native fish and amphibian species, as well as extent

of roads and water diversions. According to this analysis, seven percent of the watersheds were in excellent

condition, 36 percent were in good condition, 47 percent were in fair condition and nine percent were in

poor condition.

Sierra Nevada MIS monitoring for aquatic (benthic) macroinvertebrates (BMI) was conducted in 2009 and

2010. Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected from stream sites during both the 2009 and 2010 field

seasons according to the Reachwide Benthos (Multihabitat) Procedure. The initial BMI data from 2009 and

2010 found 46 percent (6 of 13) of the surveyed streams indicate an impaired condition and 54 percent (7 of

13) indicate a non-impaired condition. This is similar to the IBI conditions estimated by Moyle and Randall

(1996). Therefore, current data from the Sierra Nevada indicate that status and trend in the RIVPACS scores

appears to be stable.

Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Habitat

Trend: Because the risk of potential indirect and cumulative increases in channel sediment to benthic

macro-invertebrate habitat is considered low, and that BMPs, RHCA Guidelines, and Soil Quality Standards

would be followed throughout the implementation, the project will not lead to any changes in habitat trend

for this aquatic MIS at the bio-regional scale.

Riparian Habitat (Yellow warbler)

1. Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), Alternative 3, Alternative 4 (Action Alternatives)

Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat: Cattle damage willow and other hardwood stands by both browsing and

physically breaking lower branches as they seek summer shade and other palatable forage, thus possibly

changing the riparian habitat. Cattle utilization of aspen appears to be driven by seasonal differences in the

nutritional quality of aspen suckers and quantity of other available vegetation types in the system.

Jones et al. 2011 found that the nutritional quality and cattle utilization of aspen understory and meadow

vegetation declined with the season. The early-growing season foraging by cattle focused on meadow and aspen

understory vegetation, due to the greater biomass. As the season progressed, cattle foraged more on aspen

suckers. As preferred vegetation becomes scarce, cattle widen their choice of diet by adding different vegetation

types to meet their nutritional needs. A study by Kovalchik and Elmore found similar use of willows later in the

season. Willows and aspen suckers become a principal source of cattle browse as other more palatable forage

resources are depleted or as the palatability of the alternate forage decreases. Therefore, most browsing damage

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


to willows and aspen suckers occurs in late summer. As long as palatable herbaceous forage is available in the

riparian zone, willow utilization will remain minor.

Alternative 1 may affect riparian vegetation as grazing would be allowed into the fall months (September 30),

but is not likely to adversely affect riparian habitat due to the mitigation measures and adaptive management

strategies. Browsing would be limited to no more than 20 percent of the annual leader growth of mature riparian

shrubs and no more than 20 percent of individual seedlings. Livestock would be removed from any area of an

allotment when browsing indicates a change in livestock preference from grazing herbaceous vegetation to

browsing woody riparian vegetation.

Alternative 3 would have the greatest effect on riparian vegetation by allowing twice as many cattle in the area

for almost a month longer than alternative 1 and two months longer than alternative 4, thus allowing grazing in

the fall when hardwoods are selected. Adaptive management for aspen, Best Management Practices, and

hydrologic function would be continued under this Alternative which would reduce the impacts to riparian

hardwoods.

Alternative 4 would result in the least amount of damage to aspen and other riparian hardwoods due to the early

removal of cattle from the area (August 15). This alternative has the lowest stocking levels (84 AUM compared

to 565 AUM for alternative 3 and 258 AUM for alternative 1), which would decrease the utilization of riparian

vegetation as there would be more meadow biomass available.

Within this allotment, approximately 73 of the 215 acres (34 percent) of riparian habitat may be browsed and

potentially affected by these alternatives. Although 34 percent of the riparian habitat may be affected, cattle

grazing under all alternatives would not change the deciduous canopy cover or the size class of deciduous trees.

Mitigation measures, design features, and allowable use standards would prevent overuse of the riparian habitat

by cattle grazing.

Long-term grazing effects to hardwoods could include elimination of a stand within 30 years. First-year willow

seedlings are very sensitive to grazing. Browsing of first-year shoots often kills the entire plant, because the

plants are easily pulled from the ground or are killed by trampling. Sites otherwise suitable for willow

establishment and growth may be poorly stocked with willow regeneration under inappropriate grazing systems,

such as season-long grazing. Poor willow recruitment can retard succession from immature to mature willow

stands. Without recruitment, willow stands develop unbalanced age structures and eventually die. This is very

unlikely under all three alternatives as design features and mitigation measures are placed to prevent overgrazing

and negative impacts to the riparian resources.

Cumulative Effects to Habitat:

There are a few aspen stands within the Willow Creek drainage and along the North Fork Feather River that

have been treated by removing conifers from the aspen stand to increase sunlight and some that have just been

fenced. There is one large aspen stand at the south end of Willow Lake that has not been treated, but may

require treatment and/or fencing if future monitoring deems it necessary. This will enhance the growth and

expansion of riparian vegetation that had been suppressed and encroached by conifers. Thinning and fuel

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


reduction projects do not occur within riparian habitats and would not contribute to cumulative effects. There

may be positive cumulative effects from the aspen treatments. Aspen treatments improve riparian vegetation.

The riparian vegetation could be negatively affected by grazing but the previous treatments do not act

cumulatively to reduce riparian vegetation.

In summary, cattle grazing within the Feather River Allotment may occur within 34 percent of the available

riparian habitat. Past, present, and future projects within riparian habitats includes aspen and meadow

enhancements that are designed to remove encroaching conifers to allow growth and expansion of riparian

habitats. These projects would be beneficial to riparian habitat. This project would not contribute to cumulative

effects.


Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat: Under Alternative 2 there would be no commercial livestock grazing

allowed in the allotment. There would be no grazing of riparian shrubs by cattle, improving health and vigor for

most species. There would be a possible minor increase in meadow encroachment by woody vegetation.

Without any grazing by cattle, there would be no direct or indirect effects to riparian vegetation.

Cumulative Effects to Habitat: Eliminating livestock grazing may in the short term result in increases in riparian

hardwoods such as willows, aspen and cottonwood. The effects of livestock removal on riparian hardwoods is

likely to be one of incremental improvement on areas that are most affected by livestock, such as near water

sources including the Willow Creek area. Since there are no direct or indirect effects from alternative 2, there

would be no cumulative effects.

In summary, when considering that implementation of alternative 2 would have no cumulative effects upon

Yellow Warbler habitat in the analysis area, there would be no effect on Yellow Warbler habitat at the

bioregional scale.

Summary of Yellow Warbler Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale: The Lassen NF LRMP (as amended by

the SNF MIS Amendment) requires bioregional-scale habitat and distribution population monitoring for the

yellow warbler; hence, the riparian habitat effects analysis for the Feather River Allotment Project must be

informed by both habitat and distribution population monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat

and distribution population status and trend data for the yellow warbler. This information is drawn from the

detailed information on habitat and population trends in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report, which is hereby

incorporated by reference.

Habitat Status and Trend. There are currently 38,140 acres of riparian habitat on National Forest System

lands in the Sierra Nevada. Over the last two decades, the trend is stable.

Population Status and Trend. Monitoring of the yellow warbler across the ten National Forests in the Sierra

Nevada has been conducted since 2009 in partnership with PRBO Conservation Science, as part of a

monitoring effort that also includes mountain quail, hairy woodpecker, and fox. Yellow warblers were

detected on 13.7 percent of 160 riparian point counts in 2009 and 19.4 percent of 397 riparian point counts in

2010; additional detections were documented on upland point counts. The average abundance (number of

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


individuals recorded on riparian passive point count surveys) was 0.166 in 2009 and 0.309 in 2010. In

addition, the yellow warblers continue to be monitored and surveyed in the Sierra Nevada at various sample

locations by avian point count, spot mapping, mist-net, and breeding bird survey protocols. These are

summarized in the 2008 Bioregional Monitoring Report. Current data at the rangewide, California, and

Sierra Nevada scales indicate that the distribution of yellow warbler populations in the Sierra Nevada is

stable.

Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Yellow Warbler Trend. The possible

change of 73 acres out of 215 acres (34 percent) of riparian habitat in the Feather River Allotment, and 73

acres out of 38,140 (0.2 percent) acres of riparian habitat in the Sierra Nevada will not alter the existing

trend in the habitat, nor will it lead to a change in the distribution of yellow warblers across the Sierra

Nevada bioregion.





Wet Meadow Habitat (Pacific tree frog)

1. Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), Alternative 3

Direct Effects to Habitat: Livestock grazing under alternatives 1 and 3 would result in direct effects upon Pacific

tree frog habitat in the form of increased soil compaction from livestock trampling. Under heavy livestock use,

potential reductions in wet meadow/wetland habitat could occur as compacted soils may no longer be suitable

for supporting meadow vegetation. However, given the relatively low numbers of livestock proposed under

alternatives 1 and 3, implementation of either of these alternatives would be unlikely to result in a measurable

decline in wet meadow/wetland habitat within the allotment area.

Indirect Effects to Habitat: When assessing indirect effects upon Pacific tree frog habitat, four habitat factors are

considered: changes in area of wet meadow/wetland habitat, changes in CWHR herbaceous height classes,

changes in CWHR herbaceous ground cover classes, and changes in meadow hydrology. These factors are

analyzed and discussed below.

Wet meadow/wetland habitat acreage: Livestock are expected to utilize wet meadows/wetlands within the

allotment area for grazing. However, given the relatively low numbers of livestock permitted under

alternatives 1 and 3, no reductions in wet meadow/wetland acreages would be expected within the allotment

area under implementation of either of these alternatives.

Herbaceous height classes: Herbaceous height within allotment-area wet meadows and wetlands may be

expected to decline within some areas, particularly within the Willow Creek and Domingo Creek

subwatersheds where most grazing occurs. Implementation of allowable use standards within key areas of

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


the allotment would be used to measure declines in herbaceous vegetation height. If herbaceous vegetation

heights in key areas declined to the values outlined under the allowable use standards, adaptive management

strategies would be utilized to prevent further declines. Adaptive management strategies would be quicker

to implement under alternative 1 as management criteria would be formally incorporated into the grazing

permit. Under alternative 3, adaptive management strategies would still apply but would take longer to

implement due to them not being formally incorporated into the grazing permit.

Herbaceous ground cover classes: Similar to herbaceous height classes, changes in herbaceous ground cover

classes may occur within allotment-area wet meadows and wetlands as a result of livestock grazing.

However, given the relatively low numbers of livestock proposed under alternatives 1 and 3, it is unlikely

that a significant change in herbaceous ground cover classes would occur within the allotment area.

Meadow hydrology: Some soil compaction may occur within allotment-area wet meadows and wetlands

under alternatives 1 and 3. This compaction would decrease soil porosity, and in turn may affect meadow

hydrology at the site scale. However, given the low numbers of livestock proposed under alternatives 1 and

3, measurable changes in meadow hydrology would not be expected under either of these alternatives.

Cumulative Effects to Habitat: Key areas utilized by livestock within the Feather River Allotment are either in a

stable or upward trend toward desired conditions. Many of these key use areas are located within wet meadows

or wetlands. Ongoing activities within these areas primarily entail recreational use and road maintenance.

Roads within and adjacent to wet meadows/wetlands have altered meadow hydrology over time; in some cases,

this has resulted in the transformation of historically wet meadows/wetlands into upland coniferous forest.

When combined with grazing activities proposed under alternatives 1 or 3, there would be a low to moderate risk

of grazing contributing to the further loss or degradation of wet meadow/wetland acreage and hydrology within

the allotment area.

In summary, the risk of cumulative effects under alternatives 1 and 3 resulting from proposed grazing activities

and past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities affecting Pacific tree frog habitat within and adjacent to

the allotment area is considered low to moderate.


Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat: Under this alternative, grazing activities would no longer occur on NFS

lands within the allotment area. Impacts associated with historic grazing activities, such as reductions in

herbaceous vegetation height and groundcover, would recover to pre-grazing conditions. This would have a

beneficial, indirect effect upon Pacific tree frog habitat.

Cumulative Effects to Habitat: The removal of livestock from NFS lands within the allotment area would not

accentuate negative cumulative effects upon Pacific tree frog habitat.

When considering that implementation of alternative 2 would have no negative cumulative effects upon Pacific

tree frog habitat within the allotment area, there would be no negative cumulative effects upon Pacific tree frog

habitat at the bioregional scale.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________



Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects: Similar effects as Alternative 1.


Direct Effects to Habitat: Direct effects of alternative 4 implementation upon wet meadows/wetlands within the

Feather River Allotment are similar to those described for alternatives 1 and 3. However, under alternative 4

only the Willow Creek subwatershed would be affected by livestock grazing. No grazing would occur in the

other subwatersheds within the allotment area. In addition, the number of livestock permitted under alternative 4

would be roughly two-thirds of the number proposed under alternative 1. Increased soil compaction as a result

of livestock trampling would occur under this alternative, yet it would not be as significant as what would be

expected under the other grazing alternatives.

Indirect Effects to Habitat: When assessing indirect effects upon Pacific tree frog habitat, four habitat factors are

considered: changes in area of wet meadow/wetland habitat, changes in CWHR herbaceous height classes,

changes in CWHR herbaceous ground cover classes, and changes in meadow hydrology. These factors are

analyzed and discussed below.

Wet meadow/wetland habitat acreage: Livestock are expected to utilize wet meadows/wetlands within the

allotment area for grazing. Under alternative 4, only the wet meadows/wetlands within the Willow Creek

subwatershed would be utilized for grazing. Given the low numbers of livestock permitted under alternative

4 (roughly two-thirds the number proposed under alternative 1), no reductions in wet meadow/wetland

acreages would be expected within the allotment area under implementation of either of these alternatives.

Herbaceous height classes: Herbaceous height within allotment-area wet meadows and wetlands may be

expected to decline only within the Willow Creek subwatershed, as no grazing would be permitted outside of

this subwatershed under alternative 4. Implementation of allowable use standards within key areas of the

allotment would be used to measure declines in herbaceous vegetation height. If herbaceous vegetation

heights in key areas declined to the values outlined under the allowable use standards, adaptive management

strategies would be utilized to prevent further declines. Adaptive management strategies would occur on a

case-by-case basis and may be slower to implement when compared to alternative 1.

Herbaceous ground cover classes: Due to the low number of livestock proposed under alternative 4, it is

unlikely that changes in herbaceous ground cover classes would occur within the Willow Creek

subwatershed. In addition, the relatively short grazing season (June 1 to August 15) proposed under

alternative 4 would further limit the potential for livestock to alter ground cover classes within the allotment

area.

Meadow hydrology: As described for the other habitat factors, the low number of livestock and short grazing

season duration proposed under alternative 4 would result in a negligible to low risk of changes in meadow

hydrology within the allotment area. Some soil compaction may occur as a result of livestock trailing within

allotment-area wet meadows, yet the short grazing season (June 1 to August 15) would provide ample

recovery time for compacted soils to recover within wet meadows and wetlands of the allotment area.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Cumulative Effects to Habitat: Cumulative effects under alternative 4 are similar to those described for

alternatives 1 and 3, except that effects would be localized within the Willow Creek subwatershed. Other

subwatersheds within the allotment area would not be affected by livestock grazing under alternative 4.

Activities occurring within the Willow Creek subwatershed (where all grazing would take place under

alternative 4) primarily consist of recreational use, with dispersed campsites located along Willow Creek. These

sites result in soil compaction and a path for sediment delivery to Willow Creek and its associated

meadows/wetlands. However, given the low number of livestock and relatively short grazing season proposed

under alternative 4, there would be a low risk of grazing contributing to the further loss or degradation of wet

meadow/wetland acreage and hydrology within the allotment area.

In summary, the risk of cumulative effects under alternative 4 resulting from proposed grazing activities and

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities affecting Pacific tree frog habitat within and adjacent to the

allotment area is considered low.

Summary of Pacific Tree Frog Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale: The LNF LRMP (as amended by the

SNF MIS Amendment) requires bioregional-scale habitat and distribution population monitoring for the Pacific

tree frog; hence, the wet meadow effects analysis for the Feather River Allotment must be informed by both

habitat and distribution population monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and distribution

population status and trend data for the Pacific tree frog. This information is drawn from the detailed

information on habitat and population trends in the SNF Bioregional MIS Report.

Habitat Status and Trend. There are currently 66,000 acres of wet meadow habitat in National Forest

System lands in the Sierra Nevada. Within the last decade, the trend is stable.

Population Status and Trend. Since 2002, the Pacific tree frog has been monitored in the Sierra Nevada

forests as part of the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) monitoring plan. These data indicate

that Pacific tree frog continues to be present at these sample sites, and current data at the range-wide,

California, and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that the distribution of Pacific tree frog populations in the

Sierra Nevada are stable.

Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Pacific Tree Frog Trend. Because the

risk of potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects to wet meadow habitat, herbaceous height and ground

cover classes, and meadow hydrology are low, the Feather River Allotment will not alter the existing trend

in habitat, nor will it lead to changes in distribution of Pacific tree frogs across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

Air Quality - The Proposed Action would not have any impacts on air quality. The allotment is within the Northern

Sierra Air Quality Region. This proposed action would not violate ambient air quality standards and would be

consistent with the Federal Clean Air Act of 1977.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Agencies and Persons Consulted

Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes, and non-Forest Service persons who were consulted during the planning

process are listed on the Feather River Allotment mailing list maintained in the project files located at the Almanor

Ranger District.

Documents Incorporated by Reference: Documents referenced are cited at the point of reference in the EA.

Appendices

A. Allotment Management Plan (draft)

Maps

Map 1 Allotment Boundary, Alternative 1 - Areas Closed to Grazing

Map 2 Range Improvements

Map 3 Key Areas

Map 4 Alternative 4 - Areas Closed to Grazing

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Map 1 – Allotment Boundary, Alternative 1 – Areas Closed to Grazing

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Map 2 – Range Improvements

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Map 3 – Key Areas

______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Map 4 – Alternative 4 – Areas Closed to Grazing