Sherman Pass

Range Page 1

Sherman Pass Range Report Colville National Forest Service

Three Rivers Ranger District 07/13/2015

Rangeland Management Specialist

Brandon Weinmann

Picture was taken 7/24/2013 off of Coyote Creek Road at the 2000-110/2000-085 intersection located at T35N, R36E, Section 26 NE ¼. This shows a fenced exclosure used to protect this specific area.

Sherman Pass

Range Page 2

Sherman Pass Range Existing Condition The Republic/Three Rivers Ranger Districts of the Colville National Forest proposes to treat timber stands within the Sherman Pass planning area using a variety of mechanical and non-mechanical methods to reduce hazardous fuels, minimize the risk of wildfire, and improve forest health. Timber harvest as well as fuels/silvicultural management would occur on approximately 16,000 acres of a 34,000-acre planning area. The project is located on the Republic and Three Rivers Ranger Districts of the Colville National Forest and primarily within the O’Brien Creek, Upper Sherman Creek, and Lower Sherman Creek sub watersheds. The project area is contained within Township 36, Range 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36. Elevations in the watershed range from 2,000 feet to 5,500 feet. The project area expands into four allotments, but the actual project area within each of the allotments varies. The Jungle Hill allotment has 935 acres within the project area located in the northeast portion of the allotment. The project area covers a portion across the northern boundary of the Quartz allotment and encompasses 3,366 acres. Graves allotment has the largest amount of acres within the project area with 26,235 acres. This is nearly half the allotment and the project persists on both the north and south side of the Sherman Highway. The Bangs allotment has the least amount of acres within the project boundary which is 466 acres. The project boundary overlaps onto the northwest portion of the Bangs allotment.

Allotment Total Allotment Acres Sherman Pass Acres In Allotment

Jungle Hill 7,839 935 Quartz 59,224 3,366

Graves Mountain 60,900 26,235 Bangs 5,749 466 Total 133,712 31,002

Not all of these allotments have active grazing permits which authorize permittees to graze livestock on them. The grazing permittees for the active and vacant allotments of the Sherman Pass planning area are as follows.

Allotment Permittee Jungle Hill Kevin and Rhonda DalBalcon

Quartz Bryan and Debra Gotham/ K-Diamond-K Ranch Inc.

Graves Vacant Bangs Vacant

Sherman Pass

Range Page 3

Certain areas within grazing allotments are more suited to supporting livestock use and therefore areas within allotments have been evaluated and classified as either primary rangelands, secondary rangelands or transitory rangelands. The primary rangelands in these allotments are composed of park-like areas with open fir and pine timber stands or prominent ridges and outcroppings with a grass and shrub understory. Primary rangelands in these allotments have become less open and more dominated by timber and dense shrubs due to the suppression of fire. Many of the traditional open park-like timber stands that occur on south facing slopes within these allotments are being lost due to the encroachment of Douglas-fir trees. It has been determined that most of the watersheds on these two Districts have gone through dramatic alteration in the structure and composition of the forest in the warm-dry Douglas fir/shrub biophysical environment, due to over 80 years of fire suppression and silvicultural activities. Even in the present day environment, fire suppression limits the number of acres burned because the risk of a catastrophic wildfire is great due to current fuel loads. Secondary rangelands are composed of areas with a denser understory and overstory compared to primary rangelands. Transitory rangelands are created rangelands that produce herbaceous understory growth only as a result of management actions or fire which temporarily thin or remove overstory vegetation.

Sherman Pass

Range Page 4

A variety of range improvement projects have been constructed within these grazing allotments in order to facilitate improved grazing management, livestock management and natural resource protection. Range improvement projects present on the allotments within the Sherman Pass planning area consist of water developments and fencing. Some of the first range improvement projects were constructed in the 1940s and 1950s with most being constructed throughout the 1960s and 1970s. Springs were developed to provide drinking water for livestock and to disperse livestock, thereby allowing for a more uniform utilization pattern within the allotment. Spring development also acts to reduce trampling effects from livestock to the area’s wet soils. Water developments typically consist of a collection device (referred to as a spring box), a water trough, piping to connect the spring box and trough and fencing to protect the water source from livestock impacts. Typically there is an overflow pipe that directs excess water back to the wetted area in order to keep the area around the trough dry. The majority of fencing is barbed wire with a mix of steel and wood posts. Most fencing was constructed from the 1950s through 1970s to create effective allotment and pasture boundaries for the benefit of improved allotment management and livestock distribution. There are also some exclosure fences within the Sherman planning area to protect sensitive riparian areas from resource damage. Physical allotment and pasture boundaries consist of a combination of fencing and natural barriers. Natural barriers are considered to be features present on the landscape that act to limit livestock movements. When natural barriers are connected with fencing, livestock can be contained in desired locations. Natural barriers in regards to range management can consist of rock outcroppings, cliffs, talus slopes, steep slopes, dense timber or excessive down timber. Effective natural barriers are extremely valuable to range management and grazing permittees because they reduce the need to construct fencing, eliminate costs associated with fence construction and require no maintenance. There are approximately six allotment boundary fences and seven pasture fences currently being maintained by permittees who hold an active Term Grazing Permit on the Quartz allotment. These fences create a physical barrier to achieve the desired livestock management on the landscape within the allotment boundary. The table below identifies the specific range improvement and its function regarding livestock management. Range Improvements used to create physical barriers on Quartz allotment.

Name Type Function Refrigerator/Nine mi. Fence Fence Pasture Boundary Nine Mile/Bridge Fence Fence Pasture Boundary Refrigerator Canyon Fence Fence Pasture Boundary McMann Fence Fence Allotment Boundary O’Brien/Hall Cr. Fence Fence Allotment Boundary 13 Mile Fence Fence Allotment Boundary Hall Creek Fence Fence Pasture Boundary Hall Creek RD/Nine Mile Fence Fence Pasture Boundary

Sherman Pass

Range Page 5

Hall Creek RD Fence Fence Pasture Boundary Snow Peak Fence Fence Allotment Boundary Snow Peak/Sherman East Fence (600 rd.) Fence Allotment Boundary Snow Peak/Sherman West Fence Fence Allotment Boundary Issues to be Addressed

1. Concern that treatments would increase livestock access to streams, resulting in negative impacts.

2. Concern that treatments near allotment, pasture and National Forest boundaries would remove natural barriers to livestock movement and allow permitted livestock to drift into unauthorized pastures or off allotments.

3. Access to range improvement projects (fences and water troughs) stock driveways and salting locations by Forest roads.

4. Concern that range improvement projects, such as fencing and water developments would be damaged as a result of the project.

5. Concern that under burning would negatively impact forage available for livestock. Design Element

Element Areas Implementation Natural Barrier will remain within the Quartz allotment which runs north from Mt. Washington to the Snow Peak/Sherman East Fence (600 Rd.) Natural Barrier would be approximately 300ft wide. Fence would be constructed if function of natural barrier is lost during project implementation.

Units 88, 91, and 91b

District Fire/Fuels/Range personnel

Drain dips will be designed for low clearance vehicles.

Roads 2053, 2050100, 2050167,2050110, and 2050116

Forest Transportation Manager and Purchaser Contractor

Existing Condition Jungle Hill Allotment The Jungle Hill allotment is located in Township 36 North, Range 34 East, Willamette Meridian. North Fork O’Brien Creek flows along the allotment’s southern boundary and the South Fork Sanpoil River flows from the northern portion of the allotment. Elevations on the allotment range from approximately 3,800 feet, near where the South Fork Sanpoil River enters National Forest lands, to 7,000 feet near Wapaloosie and Scar Mountains at its northeastern edge.

Sherman Pass

Range Page 6

Lands included in the Jungle Hill allotment have grazing use documented as early as 1912. From 1912 until 1921 only sheep grazing occurred with numbers ranging from a low of 1000 to a high of 3600. From 1922 to 1946 there was a mix of both sheep and cattle grazing on the allotment. From 1947 until present, only cattle have grazed the Jungle Hill Allotment. Cattle numbers have varied over the years from a high of 265 pair to a low of 125 pair at present day. Prior to 1976, the Jungle Hill Allotment was actually two smaller allotments. These two allotments were combined into the present day Jungle Hill allotment through development of a new Allotment Management Plan in 1976. This allotment is currently managed under a two pasture deferred rotation grazing system, though the allotment has been managed as a 3 pasture deferred rotation system in the past. This grazing system was developed and implemented in order to improve range conditions by eliminating season long grazing use. The Jungle Hill allotment is approximately 7,834 acres in size, and supports 125 cow/calf pairs from June 1 to October 15 annually. Range improvements for the Jungle Hill allotment consist of five livestock management fences totaling 4.5 miles and nine developed springs with water troughs. The first range improvements on this allotment were constructed in 1962 and construction/reconstruction of improvements continue as the need exists. Range improvements are maintained annually by the grazing permittee, though they do age and deteriorate and must be reconstructed once they have gone beyond their useful life. All of the range improvement projects within the Jungle Hill allotment are within the boundary of the Sherman planning area. The names and condition rating for all range improvement projects in the Jungle Hill allotment are as follows.

PROJECT NAME CONDITION RATING Shovel Spring Satisfactory Willow Spring Satisfactory Columbia Spring Satisfactory Karamip Fence Figure A Satisfactory Trap Fence Figure O Satisfactory Sanpoil Road Fence Figure H Satisfactory Jungle Hill Spring Critical* Upper Wapaloose Spring Satisfactory Packrat Spring Satisfactory Crea Spring Satisfactory Blaine Spring Satisfactory Nyra Spring Good Dead End Canyon Fence Figure C Poor Jungle/Bracken Fence Figure AA Satisfactory

* Critical condition indicates a need for reconstruction. There are some former range improvement projects which have been abandoned in place on this grazing allotment. Particularly there is a barbed wire fence that has been abandoned in place that lies near the western boundary in unit 078 and follows along north through units 073 and 163. Since this fence is not being maintained it is non-functional with wires down, loose and scattered adjacent to the fence location.

Sherman Pass

Range Page 7

Natural barriers exist on the Jungle Hill allotment along the southern allotment boundary of North Fork O’Brien Creek, the ridgeline separating the Wapaloosie and Shovel Creek pastures, and the ridgeline separating the Jungle Hill allotment from the Bracken allotment. Natural barriers existing on the mentioned ridgelines consist mainly of dense timber found on the steep slopes north of these ridges. Of the 7,834 acres within this allotment, 3,400 acres are considered to be primary rangelands and 745 acres are considered to be secondary rangelands. Transitory rangelands also exist in this allotment and are the result of past timber harvest, road construction activities and powerline utility corridors. Dominant grass species in the allotment are pinegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, sandberg bluegrass, Idaho fescue.

Sherman Pass

Range Page 8

Sherman Pass

Range Page 9

Quartz Allotment The Quartz allotment is located between Township 35, 36 North and Range 33, 34 East. This allotment is the largest on the Republic Ranger District. It expands from the Sanpoil River on its west boundary to the Kettle Crest on the east. The southern boundary is defined by the Colville Indian Reservation and Forest Service Land border. The northern boundary is outlined by the Sherman Pass Highway and a mix of private property. Elevations on the allotment range from approximately 2,200 feet near the Sanpoil River up to 6,900 feet elevation on the Kettle Crest at Bald Mountain. There are four major streams that flow from this allotment. Thirteen Mile and Hall Creek flow into the Colville Indian Reservation to the south and Hall Creek flows directly into the Columbia River. Nine Mile and Thirteen Mile and the South Fork O’ Brian Creek flow into the Sanpoil River. There are several public access points to this allotment. The main one is county road which starts at the County Sand pit on Highway 20 East and generally runs in a southeast direction until it goes into the Colville Indian Reservation, these roads are labeled rd. 2054 and 2050600. Another road that accesses this area is the O’ Brien Creek Rd. or the 2052010 road. The third road to access the allotment is the McMann Rd. or the 2100500 road. This road leaves the State Route 21 approximately 5.5 miles south of Republic. In the beginning of the Quartz allotment, grazing management by the Forest Service was over a vast area. Ranchers were charged for use, but were not generally given a specific area to graze in. Most areas that ranchers utilized were adjacent to their private property and were considered summer livestock range. In the Quartz area there were several permittees that lived outside of the area such as Yakima, WA hauling their sheep in for summer grazing. The boundaries have changed many times due to the vastness in size of this allotment with no records on the district of early changes. Sometime in the early 1940’s the Iron Mountain and the Camel Back allotments were added to the Quartz allotment. In 1945 the earliest Actual Use Records showed 9 permittees, 2 of these permittees were taking non-use at the time for a total number of 267 cattle. In 1949 these records showed 9 permittees with 305 head of cattle. The numbers stayed between 250 to 305 until 1975 when they ran 350 cattle with 5 permittees. In 1946 a portion of the Thirteenmile Sheep Allotment and Ninemile Creek Sheep allotment were added. Later in 1968 that portion that remained of the 1946, Thirteenmile Sheep allotment, east of the State Route 21 was absorbed into the Quartz allotment as well. This area known as the Sanpoil Breaks has been continuously grazed by sheep from 1920 through 1962. In 1956 Ray Ferguson a Native American obtained a permit to graze cattle on the Quartz allotment. Ray also had a grazing permit to graze cattle on the Colville Indian Reservation. He managed to build his numbers up to 176 head on this allotment. In the late 1990’s he turned his portion of the permit over to his children who have increased the permit to 276 head and still actively work at maintaining the permit. The other entity on the allotment is K Diamond K Ranch. This Ranch runs 40 head of cattle with Gotham’s from June 1 to October 31 of each year.

Sherman Pass

Range Page 10

Management of these grazing allotments is presently governed through the implementation of the 1982 Quartz Allotment Management Plan. Presently the Quartz allotment is managed under a three pasture grazing system and typically runs from June 1st to October 31st. Two permittees run in common and execute a deferred rotation grazing system. Livestock are turned out in either Unit 1 or Unit 2 in the lower elevations and finish the grazing season in the high elevation pasture Unit 3. According to our records there are currently 9 cattleguards, 25 water developments, approximately 9 miles of fence and one corral on the Quartz allotment.

PROJECT NAME CONDITION RATING 13 Mile Fence (Fig. C) Satisfactory Hall CR. Fence (Fig. B) Satisfactory Hall CR. RD/Ninemile Fence (Fig. H)

Satisfactory

Hall CR. RD. Fence (Fig. L) Satisfactory Refig./Ninemile Fence (Fig. I) Satisfactory Ninemile/Bridge Fence (Fig. J) Satisfactory Refrig. Canyon Fence (Fig. K) Satisfactory Snow Peak Fence (Fig. D) Satisfactory Snow PK./Sherman East Fence (Fig. F)

Satisfactory

Snow PK./Sherman West Fence (Fig. F)

Satisfactory

Ninemile Log Fence (Fig. M) Satisfactory McMann Fence (Fig. E) Satisfactory O’brien/Hall CR. Fence (Fig A.) Satisfactory Ferguson Corral (Fig. G) Poor Camel Back Spring #206 Satisfactory Iron Mtn. Spring #14 Satisfactory Eagle Rock Spring #1 Good Bluehorse Spring #16 Satisfactory Cougar Spring #13 Satisfactory Yenter Spring #4 Satisfactory 13 Mile Spring #210 Satisfactory Ray’s Edds Mtn. Spring #10 Satisfactory Snow Peak Spring #12 Satisfactory Brayan’s Off Road Spring #209A Satisfactory Hall Cr. 620 Spring #17 Satisfactory Clarke Spring #208 Satisfactory Pine Spring #209 Satisfactory Scenic View Spring #7 Satisfactory Gravel Pit Spring #207 Satisfactory Pony Spring #2 Satisfactory

Sherman Pass

Range Page 11

Quartz Spring #5 Satisfactory Quartz Mtn. Spring #3 Satisfactory Nine Mile Spring #11 Satisfactory Birch Spring #9 Poor Brown Mtn. Spring #12A Satisfactory David Spring #8A Satisfactory Hidden Spring #8 Critical* Gold Water Spring #211 Satisfactory Saw Spring Good

* Critical condition indicates a need for reconstruction.

Sherman Pass

Range Page 12

Sherman Pass

Range Page 13

Graves Allotment The Graves allotment is located between Township 35, 36 North and Range 35, 36 East. The Sherman Pass Highway runs west to east through the middle of the Graves allotment. Sherman Creek also runs parallel with the Sherman Pass Highway through much of the allotment. Elevations on the allotment range from approximately 2,050 feet where the Sherman Highway enters the Graves allotment on the east boundary to 7,100 feet on Snow Peak which is on the west end of the Graves allotment. The Kettle Crest Mountain range is located on the west end of the Graves allotment and the Sherman Creek Wildlife Recreation Area is on the east side of the allotment. Graves is bordered by the Quartz and Jungle Hill allotment to the west, The C.C. Mountain and Nancy Creek allotments to the north, the Bangs allotment to the east and the Lake Ellen allotment to the south. The first permit in effect was in 1927 and was held by Emile Roberts later to become Roberts Bros. Historically three bands of sheep were used on the allotment during the grazing season. The earliest district records show use in 1946 with the same permittee and camp tender as previously mentioned. Several years later the 1959 management plan called for a deferred rotation system to be implemented during the grazing season. At one point the allotment was broken into 10 separate units for grazing and sheep were trailed between all of these units on an alternating pattern. The grazing capacity has always been between 1,000-1,200 ewes and lambs each year with no problems at this stocking level at least until 1946. The document we have on record is the Allotment Management Plan of 1985. Documentation from the 1991 Annual Operating Instructions for Graves allotment on file indicates the use of 1,200 head from 6/1 to 9/15. The typical season of use was from 6/1 to 9/15 after the implementation of the 1985 allotment management plan. The permitted use at this time was 4,812 Head Month’s or 1,375 ewes and lambs. The grazing capacity was set at 6,077 Head Month’s or 1,736 ewes and lambs and based off of the 1980 range analysis. A grazing system was based on a deferred rotation system to make better use of the range resource and provide a rest period for the vegetation. The allotment is composed of two distinct areas which functioned as pastures within the allotment. They were the north and south half and they were divided by Highway 20. At this time in 1985 sheep were divided into two bands with one band grazing the north half and the other band grazing the south half form 6/1 to 9/15. The sheep were then trailed across the allotment using predetermined routes based on forage availability and campsite locations. Each band had one herder and one dog to execute the desired management approach. A camp tender was used for both bands to set up camp as the sheep were trailed across the allotment. Prior to 1984 only one band grazed the allotment and one half of the allotment at a time giving it a rest rotation. However, since 1984 sheep were divided into two bands and grazed both sides of the allotment simultaneously allowing greater flexibility in grazing patterns with less intensity over a longer duration of time. The grazing patterns were alternated with north and south routes on each half of the Highway 20. The south side of highway could be rested by using both north and south routes of the northern area of allotment and then using the south side of Highway 20 the following year in a similar management approach. Some of the areas of concern were steep side slopes, road cuts, and fills. These sights were found in various locations across the allotment. Some tree plantations and deer winter range were

Sherman Pass

Range Page 14

excluded from use. Herder campsites, bedding grounds, livestock watering areas all had a range analysis completed and were identified on maps. High use areas or recreation areas such as the Canyon Creek Campground were avoided during the grazing season. Due to the proactive approach to herding and moving livestock, no range improvements were proposed during this time. There are currently no range improvements within this allotment for the purpose of livestock management besides two old exclosures. Not much is known about the history of these structures. The allotment was primarily used as a sheep allotment and the methods for livestock management consisted of herding and salting across the landscape. Range improvements were not part of this management scheme; however, there are a few old riparian sheep exclosures found off of the Lane Creek and Coyote Creek road systems. These old exclosures are still present on the landscape but are not functioning for any particular purpose due to the allotment being vacant. The natural barriers existing within the Graves allotment are located on the west and east boundary of this allotment. On the west side of the allotment, Graves shares allotment boundaries with Jungle Hill and Quartz. Although the Graves allotment is vacant, the vegetation on these boundaries can still provide an effective natural barrier to keep livestock from drifting off of the Jungle Hill or Quartz allotment and migrating onto the Graves allotment. On the east side of the Graves allotment, a boundary is shared between the Sherman Creek Wildlife Area and the Bangs allotment. Again the natural barrier is currently effective due to vegetation. The combination of fencing and vegetation keeps livestock from drifting off of the Bangs allotment and migrating onto the vacant Graves allotment. These natural boundaries are also very important because the Sherman Highway is in close proximity to these allotments.

Sherman Pass

Range Page 15

Sherman Pass

Range Page 16

Bangs Allotment The Bangs allotment is located in Township 35, 36 north and Range 36, 37 east. The range is composed of open rock bluffs and timber stands. Elevation ranges from 2,000 feet to 4,000 feet. Aspect is predominantly southeast exposure towards the Columbia River. The allotment is bordered by private property to the east. Lake Ellen and the Lake Ellen allotment border the Bangs allotment to the south and southwest. The northwest side of the Bangs allotment is bordered by the Graves allotment and to the north lies the Sherman Creek Wildlife Area and Sherman Highway. Major land features on the allotment are Bangs Mountain and Donaldson Draw. The range analysis during this time (1982 Allotment Management Plan) estimated the carrying capacity to be 109 cow/calf pairs and broken into 4 pastures. The most recent allotment map shows three pastures and is missing the Yake Mountain pasture. Other current existing pastures are Homestead, Bangs Mountain, and Lake Ellen. The allotment as we know it today was defined in 1959 and used to be part of the Lake Ellen allotment. Bangs allotment was referred to as the Bangs unit. The last time the Bangs allotment was grazed according to our records was in 1997. The grazing season was permitted from June 1st to September 30th. There were 98 cow/calf pairs permitted at this time and the permittee was Howard A. and Doris Kowitz. Presently there are five water developments and six different sections of fence on the Bangs allotment. The fence total approximately 7.1 miles in length and were built for the purpose of both executing a pasture rotation and keeping livestock from drifting off of the allotment. Water developments are mainly developed from spring sources to increase livestock distribution and attract livestock to areas with good foraging opportunities.

PROJECT NAME CONDITION RATING Northwest Fence #1 Satisfactory Bangs Mountain Division Fence #2

Poor

Yake Mountain Fence #3 Poor South (Lake Ellen) Fence #4 Poor Stahley Mountain #5 Satisfactory Viewpoint Spring Fence #6 Poor Rattlesnake Spring #7 Critical* Michael Spring #8 Poor Doris Spring #10 Poor Donaldson Spring #13 Satisfactory

* Critical condition indicates a need for reconstruction. The Sherman Pass project area overlaps onto the Bangs allotment in the northwest corner. This area of the allotment has a northwest aspect with a combination of dense, heavy timber with rock outcroppings. The rock outcroppings run north to south and the ravines are timbered. This area is a concern regarding the natural barrier for keeping livestock on the Bangs allotment and keeping

Sherman Pass

Range Page 17

them from drifting onto the Sherman Highway. According to our records, livestock on occasion would drift into the Canyon Creek Campground off of the Bangs allotment. This could be compounded if the natural barriers were removed from the northwest portion of this allotment. Removal of heavy, dense timber would also open up the tree canopy and create foraging opportunities for livestock. Mitigation would be needed to outline effective natural barriers and compensate for the creation of herbaceous production which could attract livestock to areas they would not typically inhabit.

Sherman Pass

Range Page 18

Sherman Pass

Range Page 19

Existing Condition Summary There are portions of four grazing allotments, within the boundary of the Sherman Pass planning area. There is a substantial portion of the Graves allotment within the project boundary. Jungle Hill, Quartz and Bangs allotment are also within project boundary but the amount of acres of these allotments included within the boundary is much less. Only two of these four allotments are actively grazed and use is in correlation with the Allotment Management Plans that have been established for each allotment. The grazing season generally begins on June 1 each year and extends into fall with seasons ending between October 15th and October 31st. According to past monitoring information grazing use is occurring at acceptable levels and within the specified use levels. These allotments have livestock management fences and developed springs with water troughs to support livestock grazing within them except for the Graves allotment which has been vacant for several years. The condition rating of range improvements found on these allotments vary and range between good and critical with critical needing reconstruction to properly function. Generally, the loss of primary range due to conifer encroachment has been offset by the transitory range created through the even-aged timber management practices of the 1970s and 1980s, the commercial thinning that has occurred in the more recent past and more recent large wildfires. Many of these harvested areas were seeded for wildlife and livestock forage. The normal use period for transitory range in the location of the Sherman Pass planning area is about 30 years, so much of this type of range is at, or reaching the end of its usefulness for livestock. Unfortunately, since many of the harvested units included riparian and wet areas, livestock access and use has resulted in areas where resource impacts such as streambank trampling have occurred. Grazing use within the project area also occurs in accordance with annual operating instructions which are developed prior to the grazing season. The annual operating instructions define the authorized number of livestock, pasture rotation and use periods, and discuss range improvements.

Sherman Pass

Range Page 20

Sherman Pass Range Effects Analysis Desired Conditions The desired future condition is based on assumptions, allocations and direction given in the Colville National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. This is not a direction statement, but rather conclusions drawn as to the changes that would occur as a result of management activities over the next 10 years. The following desired future condition is an excerpt from Chapter 4, page 63 of the plan. “Livestock grazing will be more intensively managed. All allotments will emphasize riparian habitat protection and/or recovery.” Management Framework Broad scale management direction for Colville National Forest grazing allotments is contained in the current Land and Resource Management Plan which states:

1. Management of grazing by domestic livestock will be guided by project level allotment plans. The development of these plans will be integrated with the needs associated with use and values present in the area. All associated uses and values will be considered, with special consideration given to: (1) fish and wildlife habitat needs; (2) timber harvest and cultural activities; (3) riparian values; (4) recreation use; and (5) threatened, endangered and sensitive species. Further considerations are contained as other resource standards and guidelines in this section of the plan.

2. Coordination requirements….will include: (1) timing of the timber harvest and associated

activities and grazing schedules; (2) protection of livestock barriers or mitigation of these values where desirable; (3) reducing the spread of noxious weeds where present; (4) seeding of livestock and wildlife forage species, considering desirability of seeding palatable and non-palatable forage species and species competitive with tree production; and (5) livestock-wildlife conflicts.

Allotment specific management direction for the affected grazing allotments is contained in the following individual allotment management plans:

1. Jungle Hill Allotment Management Plan – 1976 2. Quartz Allotment Management Plan – 1976 3. Graves Allotment Management Plan – 1985 4. Bangs Allotment Management Plan – 1982

Effects

Sherman Pass

Range Page 21

The project area encompasses portions of four allotments. Two of these allotments have an active term grazing permit and the other two are vacant. For the purpose of this analysis, the only allotment being analyzed is the Quartz allotment. The Jungle Hill allotment is active but no treatments are proposed within the allotment boundary which as a result could affect livestock management, or the range resource. Both the Graves and Bangs allotments are going to remain vacant until they are assessed in the future. These vacant allotments are considered to be outside the scope of this analysis and the future stocking of these allotments is uncertain. No Action The “no action” alternative would result in no mechanical and non-mechanical treatments or prescribed fire activities within any portion of the Jungle Hill, Quartz, Graves or Bangs allotments. Short term effects of this alternative would result in little or no change in the range resource compared to the existing condition. Livestock would continue to graze on the two active allotments, the other two allotments would remain vacant and range improvements (such as fences, water developments and corrals) would exist on the landscape and be used to manage livestock grazing depending on the status of the particular allotment regarding occupancy. Livestock would also continue to have limited access to riparian areas within the project area. Excluding wildfire, the “no action” alternative, would allow Douglas fir to continue encroaching into the more open and grassy areas of the allotments and thereby reduce the forage producing capability of the allotment. When trees encroach into upland grassy areas, they generally become more inaccessible and unavailable to livestock. As there is less forage for livestock in the upland areas of pastures, it is likely that grazing pressure would increase on lower elevation rangelands and riparian areas. From a vegetative perspective the no-action alternative has the potential to adversely affect range management because forage production would decrease as tree densities continue to increase. As the amount of uplands that support grazing decreases due to the encroachment of trees, riparian area impacts would likely increase. The no-action alternative would also produce and propagate a forest condition that has a large amount of natural fuels. High levels of natural fuels could result in large high severity fires burning the landscape. Wildfires would likely be more damaging to the forage base that supports livestock grazing in the short term than prescribed fire because fire intensities would likely cause mortality in desirable forage plants. Areas burnt by wildfires do recover and vegetation reestablishes, but there would be less forage available while recovery is taking place. The event of a high intensity fire can have a dramatic impact on the rangeland forage. Once rangelands have burned with a high intensity, the vegetation must be rested from livestock grazing to allow surviving plants to recover, desirable plant species to regenerate and allow litter accumulation to cover soil. Post fire livestock management is determined by a multitude of factors such as species of vegetation, time of year fire occurred, range condition prior to fire and variables in climatic conditions. The main concerns regarding vegetation responses after a fire

Sherman Pass

Range Page 22

with high intensity is plant vigor and seed production. Plants either establish by sprouting or seed production. Plants that reestablish from sprouting expend large amounts of their carbohydrate reserves which can increase the vulnerability to further damage. When plants are subjected to grazing during this stage of regrowth they can become weakened, destroyed and removed from the range plant community. Seed production is also affected by fire and depending on the plant species; seed production can be increased or decreased. In order for plants to reestablish on the landscape, a viable source of seed must be present, adequate soil moisture provided, suitable climatic conditions regarding temperature, and minimum competition from undesirable plants. After a rest period and plants have gone to seed, livestock grazing can be used to enhance the establishment of new plants by enhancing seed distribution and soil to seed contact. Prior to a viable seed source becoming available to assist in the reproduction/establishment of plants, grazing could deplete these particular seed sources for reestablishment. As a result of a rest period, however, livestock producers would not be able to occupy active grazing allotments for which they have a term grazing permit for and these producers would be forced to find adequate rangeland forage in another location while the vegetation in the effected area was recovering from a high severity fire. Active grazing allotments would be put into non-use status for resource protection. Logistically this could force some producers out of business, or finding suitable pastures would only be acquired by a great expense. A high severity fire on the landscape has the potential to change animal behavior, alter livestock distribution patterns, change forage preferences, areas of utilization/concentration and overall forage consumption. Several of these changes are due to the change in forage productivity, availability of forage and the quality of forage. Livestock could in turn concentrate in these burned areas, which is highly beneficial from an animal production standpoint, but high levels of use on recently establishing plant communities can be detrimental to the overall range health on the landscape. Over utilization could occur in areas where the high severity fire occurred while other parts of the allotment would be avoided by livestock causing a problem in distribution. This in combination with the removal of critical natural barriers which form allotment and pasture boundaries could cause areas of over-utilization in some pastures and under-utilization in others while there would be no means of controlling livestock distribution due to the loss of the natural barrier infrastructure. On this particular landscape, livestock could move north off of the Quartz allotment and end up on the Sherman Pass National Scenic Byway (Highway 20). Gathering livestock during the grazing season from undesirable locations and moving them back to designated locations within the allotment boundary creates a loss of time and efficiency while trying to execute a livestock grazing program. Implementing a deferred rotation without the ability to control livestock distribution creates a non-productive approach in relationship to timing, duration, intensity and frequency of use within the allotment allocated for use by livestock. The range infrastructure consisting of corrals, fences, natural vegetation barriers, water developments and access by means of roads/trails which all play a key role in the success of livestock management. All of these particular attributes are at risk when a high severity fire occurs on the landscape. As mentioned in the above paragraph, fences and natural barriers are two means of creating a physical barrier to control livestock distribution and use. Fence lines made up of wood post/wood rails would be at risk of a complete loss while fence lines

Sherman Pass

Range Page 23

constructed from t-post and wire are at risk due to a loss of integrity if the wire is heated up enough to affect the tensile strength. Loss of fences results in a change in range improvement infrastructure which has a negative effect on the ability to manage livestock on a landscape. Water developments could be lost as well to high severity fires. Water developments play a key role in active livestock management. Functioning water developments provide improvements in the natural resources regarding riparian health. Poor water distribution is the chief cause of poor livestock distribution on most ranges (Holochek et el. 250). With a loss of water developments, livestock would have no means of acquiring water besides from open spring sources, tributaries, and streams. These attributes consist mainly in riparian areas and livestock would have unlimited access to these areas on the forest. If a high severity fire destroyed the water development infrastructure on an allotment and created open riparian areas than there could be increased rates of use, trailing, bank-alteration and loafing of livestock. Water developments provide protection from this by aiding in distribution to upland forage sites where natural spring riparian sources are protected by the design construction of the development. Also the presence in functioning water developments prevents livestock from traveling large distances between water and available forage, which aids in the prevention of trails created that gradually become larger and more numerous (Holechek et el. 251). This would be even more prevalent in areas where a high severity fire has occurred where the amount of exposed soil has increased; plants are trying to reestablish to provide the proper structure/functioning capabilities of a plant community and slope failures could be occurring with increased rates of erosion. Roads and trails also play a key role in range infrastructure regarding how the livestock management is accomplished. These attributes provide a means of movement, access and the ability to make change on the landscape. When high severity fires occur within forested areas with an abundant canopy cover, snags are left on the landscape. The snag infrastructure would be compromised resulting in trees of various sizes/fuel arrangements to fall and scatter the landscape. Many of these recently created snags would fall across roads and livestock trails limiting the overall distribution across the landscape. Livestock would no longer be able to access water developments, salting grounds, and areas with upland foraging opportunities. Permittees implementing objectives associated with livestock management would not have the ability to move livestock, carry out the designated grazing rotation, check on livestock during the grazing season, move salt, maintain range improvements if they survived the high severity fire and access specific areas of the allotment. All of these are critical activities associated with implementing the terms and conditions within the grazing permit. Short term effects of this alternative would result in little or no change in the range resource compared to the existing condition. Livestock would continue to graze on the two active allotments and range improvements (such as fences, water developments and corrals) would exist on the landscape and be used to manage livestock grazing. Livestock would also continue to have limited access to riparian areas within the project area. Long-term effects of the “no action” alternative would be the perpetuation of denser stands of small diameter trees that provide little value for production of forage. Such stands typically have closely spaced tree canopies that allow little sunlight to reach the forest floor. The understory found in these types of environments usually consists of few grasses and are therefore, generally not used by livestock. These types of stands also provide a benefit to livestock management by creating natural barriers which act to restrict livestock movement. In areas of dense timber,

Sherman Pass

Range Page 24

where there is little herbaceous vegetation for an extended distance, livestock do not pass through these areas because they will not utilize areas that do not provide adequate foraging conditions. By having intact natural barriers which limit livestock movement, the need for fencing to manage livestock movement is less. This alternative would produce and propagate a forest condition that has a large amount of natural fuels. High levels of natural fuels could result in a high severity fire burning the landscape. Wildfires would likely be more damaging to the forage base that supports livestock grazing in the short term than prescribed fire because fire intensities would likely cause mortality in desirable forage plants. Areas burnt by wildfires do recover and vegetation reestablishes, but there would be less forage available while recovery is taking place. Prescribed fire could be implemented during times that would be less damaging to cool season perennial grass plants, but wildfire could occur while plants are still growing and before they have produced mature seed. This alternative has a greater potential to adversely affect range management because forage production would decrease as tree densities continue to increase. As the amount of uplands that support grazing decreases due to the encroachment of trees, riparian area impacts would likely increase. Under this alternative range improvements, such as fences and water developments would be at greater risk of having wildfire damage then. If a wildfire were to occur within the project area, there would likely be little done to protect range improvements and the improvements would have to be reconstructed. Proposed Action The proposed action consists of a host of vegetation treatments and fuel disposal methods that are expected to reduce the build-up of natural forest fuels and provide for improved forest health within the project area. Rangelands The proposed action would result in a more open timber stand where there is likely to be a greater amount of herbaceous vegetation in the understory. Converting dense forested areas to more open stands is beneficial to range management and forage production by creating transitory rangelands that provide mid-term grazing lands that provide forage to livestock and wildlife. Forested sites have a high potential for producing forage following logging because moisture availability is relatively high and competition from previously established species is less (Miller and Krueger, 1976). Logged forest communities can produce approximately twice the herbage as primary rangeland and ten times more forage than un-logged forests ((Miller and Krueger, 1976). These areas can support relatively higher numbers of grazing animals (Gillen, Krueger, and Miller, 1984). Transitory rangelands exist for approximately 10 to 30 years depending on when early structure stand tree canopies close, and older structure stands regenerate understories. Transitory rangelands that would be created by the Sherman Pass project would likely have beneficial results to grazing for closer to 30 years given precipitation amounts and forest types present. Transitory rangelands for the Sherman Pass project would be created primarily by thinning treatments combined with surface fuels treatments. Reseeding of logged areas can

Sherman Pass

Range Page 25

create a valuable temporary forage supply and can hold and rebuild the soil for future timber crops (Wilson, 1960). Non-commercial fuel treatments would not likely create large enough openings to generate forage and produce transitory rangelands. Created transitory rangelands would be in the non-riparian upland areas; therefore they would act to attract livestock away from riparian areas by providing foraging areas in the uplands. The Sherman Pass project has the potential to create an approximate 15,034 acres of transitory rangeland mainly along the Sherman Pass National Scenic Byway (Highway 20). The Quartz allotment would have the greatest benefit from the creation of transitory rangelands resulting from the proposed action due to the fact it is the only active grazing allotment with treatments proposed to increase transitory range. The Graves allotment would have the majority of the treatments within the project area but the allotment is not presently stocked. The transitory rangelands that would be created by the Sherman Pass project would be beneficial to livestock management by providing quality upland foraging areas with a reduced fuel loading of dense/heavy timber which has the potential to equate to greater weight gains of livestock. The proposed action should improve transitory rangelands and benefit permit/livestock management because it would produce additional upland grazing opportunities and therefore attract livestock away from riparian areas. The proposed action would also allow the affected livestock permittees to continue grazing at current levels with greater economic returns. Federal lands are very important in the production of red meat to supply public demand (Holechek, 1981). This in turn would help maintain the local grazing industry, the ranching lifestyle and the local economy. Acres of Transitory Rangelands Created by the Sherman Pass project.

Treatment Type Acres Mechanical Vegetation Treatments/Ladder Fuel Reduction and Non-Commercial Thinning

11,015

Pre-Commercial Thinning and Small-Pole Thinning 4,019

TOTAL 15,034 Grazing and Fuels Treatments Most proposed units within the project area would not increase livestock access to riparian areas, or cause livestock to degrade riparian areas from their current state. By following INFISH standards and guidelines and the Design Elements for this project, most riparian areas should be protected. Intact or undisturbed natural vegetation provides the best means for riparian area protection from livestock impacts. Fuel treatments which occur in riparian areas pose some risk of increasing livestock impacts to such areas by removing natural vegetation. There is little concern from pile type fuel treatments since they would be localized, but if underburning is to occur near riparian

Sherman Pass

Range Page 26

areas efforts should be made to have low intensity fires which are allowed to back down into riparian areas in an attempt to reduce the amount of tree and shrub mortality in the unit. Fewer livestock impacts to riparian areas are expected if natural vegetation is left intact in these areas. Riparian area impacts from livestock are not expected to increase following fuels treatment providing that prescribed fire is implemented so that fire intensity is low. Primary rangelands are characterized by having deep rooted cool season perennial grasses. If burning is to occur in primary range areas it should be done in the fall to favor the dominant cool season perennial plants and only when soil moisture levels are relatively high (Wright 1974). Burning these areas in the late spring and early summer would result in higher rates of mortality on desirable grass species since the plants would be actively growing and attempting to produce seed at these times. Prescribed fire in primary rangelands where older decadent shrubs occur, or where conifers are encroaching would improve rangelands and range management over an extended period by providing an improved quantity of forage available for livestock and wildlife. Health and productivity of herbaceous vegetation is expected to increase following prescribed fire in the project areas because there would be less competition for available moisture if shrubs and small trees are removed from sites. Following prescribed fire, herbaceous vegetation would be benefited through the release of nutrients and reduced competition for resources (Pearson, Davis and Schubert, 1972). Increased forage and foraging areas for livestock would result from the vegetation and fuels treatments defined in the proposed action. Implementation of the proposed action is not expected to require grazing deferral or adjustment of grazing rotation systems. Impacts to herbaceous vegetation from prescribed fire are expected to be light with minimal damage to roots because burn plans aim to create cooler fires and so prevent burning down to mineral soil. Therefore, established forage grasses are expected to be adequately recovered by June 1st when the grazing season begins for the allotments. The proposed action plans to use prescribed fire to reduce fuel loading and introduce fire back onto the landscape. Domestic and game animals prefer to graze on recently burned areas. Animals are attracted to more palatable feed, to more easily available feed or to both (Heady and Child, 1994). By using prescribed fire in the proposed action livestock would have greater foraging opportunities leading to better livestock distribution. Forage would become more readily available in the uplands and reduce the amount of time spent foraging in riparian areas. The implementation of prescribed fire has the potential to impact or complicate range and livestock management by displacing animals and damaging range improvement projects. Prior notification and planning with grazing permittees regarding prescribed fire would reduce the potential for problems in range management on the affected allotments. Range Improvements within Project Area Livestock management is accomplished in part by range improvement projects that exist within each grazing allotment. These range improvement projects include corrals, fences, water developments and exclosures. All potentially affected range improvement projects would need to be documented on timber sale maps and specified for protection. These projects are critical

Sherman Pass

Range Page 27

for the implementation of sound livestock management, they encourage and support livestock grazing in acceptable areas and provide for resource protection. If fence projects were to become damaged because of the proposed action, livestock could have increased access to riparian areas and cause degradation. If water developments were to become damaged because of the proposed action, livestock distribution could be affected and livestock may have to rely more on undeveloped springs and streams to provide adequate drinking water. All range improvement projects located within the project area need to be protected from damage that may occur from activities described in the proposed action. Known range improvement projects exist in the following units: ALLOTMENT

NAME TYPE OF PROJECT IMPROVEMENT

NAME UNIT

Quartz Water Development Pine Spring 20 Quartz Fence O’Brien/Hall Creek Fence 1,4,6 Quartz Fence Snow Peak/Sherman West

Fence 30,68,77,78,82,85

Quartz Fence Snow Peak/Sherman East Fence (600 Rd.)

87,91

There are known fences that occur near the Forest boundary in proximity to units 41,40,19,1,4,6,9,10,11,12,25,28,48,29,30 and 68 along the north boundary of the project area within the Quartz allotment. Care should be taken to avoid damage to these improvements during vegetation and fuels treatments. These are private fences and not Forest Service range improvements. Then northern boundary west of the Hall Creek Rd (C99) does not need to be buffered because there is already a fence in place along the boundary of private and Forest Service. The north/west end of the project area also has a natural barrier to keep livestock from leaving the forest. The northern boundary east of Hall Creek and referred to as north of Murphy Hill also has a fence line and natural barrier to keep livestock on the Quartz allotment. The area northwest of Mt. Washington has a mountain knob which livestock migrate around and can sometimes end up on the Sherman National Scenic Byway (Highway 20). This is due because the fence line does not connect for just over ½ mile in this section and the natural barrier is maintained by steep terrain and thick vegetation. This area would need a natural barrier left or the fence line would have to be connected to ensure livestock control is maintained after project treatments occur. Allotments located adjacent to and within Project Area The majority of the Graves allotment lies within the project boundary. Three other allotments have an identified amount of acreage within this project boundary, but the Quartz allotment which is actively being grazed with livestock within the proposed action would have the most substantial effects if the mitigation measures were not followed that could alter livestock management or change natural barriers within the allotments. The Graves and Bangs allotment are currently vacant at this time. Then Jungle Hill allotment is within the area of the proposed action but vegetation treatments were dropped from this area.

Sherman Pass

Range Page 28

Allotment Acres Within Project Area Jungle Hill 935

Quartz 3,366 Graves Mountain 26,235

Bangs 466 Sherman Pass Planning Area 31,002

Natural Barriers Allotments and pastures are separated by a combination of Forest Service fences, privately owned fences, and natural barriers. Natural barriers consist of areas that are too steep and/or rocky for livestock to cross and areas of dense timber with a lack of herbaceous plants in the understory. Cattle do not typically venture into areas of dense timber because there is a lack of forage available to support livestock grazing. Therefore, these areas work well to contain livestock in desired areas without the need for a continuously fenced perimeter. Natural barriers function well until the point they become compromised due to vegetation treatments or wildfires. The vegetation and fuels treatments in the proposed alternative have the potential to compromise some natural barriers. Evaluating effectiveness of natural boundaries and determining what constitutes an effective natural barrier is difficult. This is because there are multiple factors to consider such as percent slope, denseness of vegetation, type of terrain, aspect, amount of rock, etc... Combining all of the listed factors with how livestock use a given area and evaluating how capable and suitable the adjoining areas are for supporting livestock grazing makes planning for maintenance of natural boundaries a challenge. Post implementation monitoring is the only way to evaluate if natural boundaries have been maintained successfully or not. Therefore, post implementation monitoring is critical to evaluating the success of natural boundaries following implementation of the proposed action. Should it be determined that natural boundaries have been compromised by the Sherman Pass project, the Colville National Forest fuels program would identify resources to construct fencing in its place. The natural barriers of most concern are in proposed non-mechanical thinning units 88, 91, and 91b but as long as design elements are implemented, these natural boundaries should be protected. The above mentioned non-mechanical thinning units are situated in the location of allotment boundaries that are not completely fenced. The natural boundary in the location of units 88, 91 and 91b is critical in keeping permitted livestock in the appropriate and authorized grazing area. The natural boundaries in the location of these specific units keep livestock from leaving the Quartz allotment and ending up on the Sherman National Scenic Byway (Highway 20). The natural boundaries in the location of these units keep the Quartz allotment livestock from drifting north off of the allotment and onto the highway 20 where livestock can travel long distances from the designated grazing area. Without the natural barrier which runs north of the northwest ridge of Mt. Washington to the Snow Peak/Sherman East Fence (600 Rd.) From here livestock can migrate down towards the town of Republic and intermix between private land entities. These natural boundaries are very important to maintain because they allow for allotment management plans to me implemented and complied with.

Sherman Pass

Range Page 29

Map below shows the only natural barrier being preserved within the project area by leaving a vegetation barrier of some type to prevent livestock from drifting north off of the Quartz allotment and onto the Sherman National Scenic Byway (Highway 20).

Replacing natural boundaries with fencing is not a desirable option or mitigation due to cost, project maintenance and feasibility. Costs for barbed wire fence construction can cost up to $4.00 per foot and annual maintenance costs would be required for the life of the fence. Should additional fencing be needed to create effective allotment or pasture boundaries on any of the allotments contained within the boundaries of the Sherman Pass project, maintenance of such fences would become the responsibility of the grazing permit holder upon completed construction. Additional maintenance responsibilities would impact grazing permittees by

Sherman Pass

Range Page 30

requiring more time to maintain a greater amount of fencing compared with the existing condition. Roads Proposed temporary road construction and road reconstruction is not expected to have any effect on livestock grazing. Cumulative Effects This cumulative effects analysis considers the effects of the Sherman Pass Project on livestock grazing when considered with past, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The geographic cumulative effects are limited to the Forest Service allotment boundaries for areas contained within the project area. The cumulative effects of past timber harvest, roading activity, wildfire and increased recreational use and development have all complicated the management of grazing within the analysis area. Past timber harvest activities have resulted in a positive effect on the forage base for these allotments. Timber harvest created openings in the forest which provided temporary additional forage for livestock by way of creating transitory rangelands. When transitory rangeland is created and available, it reduces the level of grazing pressure on primary and secondary rangeland. Transitional rangelands also provide an abundance of forage for livestock which produces heavier calves for the producers and higher economic gains when their calves are sold at market. Having a mix of transitory rangelands mixed with primary and secondary rangelands are beneficial to livestock grazing. Between approximately 1975 and 1995 there was a dramatic increase in the amount of roads and timber harvest units which provided livestock access to riparian areas. In the past, many of these activities also prescribed the use of palatable forage species when seeding for erosion control in all areas including riparian areas. This created an environment that attracted livestock into riparian areas and provided desirable forage that allowed them to stay in these areas rather than moving on to native upland foraging areas. Creation and improvement of rangelands in upland areas will help draw cattle away from these historic use areas. The amount of transitory rangeland within the entire project area would increase following implementation and would provide valuable upland foraging opportunities for livestock, thereby attracting them away from riparian areas. Past road construction activities have generally been beneficial to range management by providing access to construct water developments and fences and manage livestock. Roads that are near range improvement projects provide a way to get supplies to improvements and aid in project maintenance activities. Having roads within grazing allotments also allows permittees to distribute salt to livestock, check on the location of livestock and bring livestock onto and off of

Sherman Pass

Range Page 31

allotments with greater efficiency. Roads can also act as routes to trail livestock on while moving from one pasture to another. Both open and closed roads aid permittees in the management of their allotments. The Colville National Forest maintains fire history data for large fire perimeters dating back to the early 1900’s. The planning area has had 2 large fires since 1970 that burned into it, the White Mountain fire in 1988 burned approximately 3400 acres in the southern part of the planning area, and an unnamed fire in 1970 burned approximately 70 acres west of the White Mt. Fire in the planning area. Prior to 1970 several large fires burned into the Sherman planning area, with the Dollar Mountain Fire of 1929 burning approximately 28,000 acres in the planning area with a total size estimated at 148,000 acres. Evidence remaining from the 1929 Dollar Mountain fire is almost non-existent, while the scar from White Mountain is still clearly visible. The burned areas of the White Mountain fire were primarily stand replacing fire; the area has since regenerated primarily with overstocked stands of Douglas fir. Fires in the Sherman planning area typically start up high on the Kettle Crest, and move down drainage towards infrastructure, improvements and private lands.

Sherman Pass

Range Report Page 32

No Action The no action alternative would have no cumulative effects on the range resource. All other direct and indirect effects to the range resource would include a loss in transitory range, decrease in livestock distribution and inability to use the existing range improvements in relationship to a change in forage base. Proposed Action Ongoing and future noxious weed treatments under the existing Integrated Noxious Weed Treatment Decision are helping to reduce noxious weed populations that may be spread by livestock. The mitigation measures specific to the Sherman Pass project should limit the spread of noxious weeds within and around the project area. The Sanpoil Vegetation Project, located adjacent to the Sherman Pass project to the south, would be next in the project timeline. This project could affect the range resources on the Quartz allotment. Vegetation treatments with a combination of fuels reduction would create a given amount of transitory range. This project in relationship to the Sherman Pass project would be at a different phase of implementation but the effects of this project would produce similar results regarding a change in livestock management, habituation of livestock on the landscape, effects to range infrastructure, changes in natural barriers and changes to the available forage base. These changes while in a different location but located on the same allotment would have a cumulative effect on the overall allotment management and range resource within the Quartz allotment. On a broad scale spectrum, the overall amount of transitory range would be increased due to the treatments proposed within both projects. This in turn, would change how livestock distribute across the landscape and are habituated to using the available forage. These activities between the two vegetation treatment projects would have an effect on these above mentioned resources for approximately 10 years. The activities in the proposed action combined with past, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not cumulatively negatively affect range management within the affected Forest Service grazing allotments. Irreversible & Irretrievable Effects There are no irreversible and/or irretrievable effects concerning range management from the Sherman Pass Project if mitigating measures are implemented. Mitigation Measures The mitigation measures identified here are those that address range management concerns that are specific to this project.

Sherman Pass

Range Report Page 33

1. Existing, known range improvement projects will be protected from damage which may result from harvest activities. Known range improvement projects are located in the following units; 1,4,6,20,30,68,77,78,82,85,87 and 91.

2. All rangeland improvements, such as developed springs, water troughs, corrals and

fences not previously identified by the NEPA inventory and analysis would be delineated during layout and protected during harvest and burning activities. Should identified range improvements become damaged as a result of the proposed action, they shall be repaired to their pre-implementation condition.

3. Grazing permittees will be notified prior to implementing any prescribed fire, or pile burning within the project area by district fire staff. This is to mitigate effects to livestock safety and grazing rotations from prescribed fire/pile burning operations. The Fire Management Officer is responsible for ensuring this measure is met.

4. All gates located in fences and next to cattle guards within the project area would be left

in the condition with which they are found. If the gate is found to be closed, it must be closed again immediately after use in order to keep permitted livestock in the appropriate pasture. If gates are found to be open, they should remain open.

5. Log landing should be placed on an area other than a grass/forage meadow to avoid

project conflicts with livestock management and utilization of forage by livestock.

6. Protect and preserve Natural Barriers that act as allotment and pastures boundaries. This includes all treatment types.

7. Motorized access for completing range improvement maintenance and salting activities. Allowing permittees the access to accomplish project maintenance on their allotments. These areas identified should be left free of debris to allow access.

8. To reduce the potential for livestock to negatively impact water quality or riparian areas, do not treat vegetation in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas that would allow livestock to gain access to streams. This includes all treatment types.

9. Treat or remove slash and fuels resulting from commercial harvest to allow for quality transitory rangelands. This is to leave treated units relatively free of slash, so that they can be used as transitory rangelands.

Monitoring Recommendations

1. Any new structures installed to manage livestock to the pre-condition of project implementation would be checked at least once within one year of installation and would be recorded in the INFRA database.

Sherman Pass

Range Report Page 34

2. The Rangeland Management Specialist that administers the grazing permits affected by the Sherman Pass project would be responsible for monitoring natural boundaries identified as at risk due to implementation of the Sherman Pass project. The Rangeland Management Specialist would determine what would be needed to create effective allotment and pasture boundaries.

Effects Summary The Sherman Pass project would be beneficial to the range resource by producing a more open timber stand, removing shrubs and reducing fuel loading of the understory. These treatments would create an approximate additional 15,034 acres of transitional rangelands that would be able to provide quality forage to permitted livestock for up to 30 years. If implemented, the proposed action would create transitional rangeland that would be available for livestock grazing in upland sites. By providing grazing opportunities in uplands, livestock would be less likely to loiter in riparian areas. There is potential for natural boundaries to be compromised by the Sherman Pass project. It is anticipated that following INFISH requirements and project design elements would be adequate to maintain at risk natural boundaries between allotments and pastures. If natural boundaries are compromised, fencing would be constructed to manage livestock movement. By implementing the proposed action, grazing lands would be at a reduced risk of damage caused by catastrophic wildfire, which could create hardships for grazing permittees and cause widespread damage to grazing allotments and range improvements. References Brown, J.K. and J.K. Smith, eds. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. Gen.

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 257 p.

Buckhouse, J.C. and G.F. Gifford (1976) Water Quality Implications of Cattle Grazing on a Semiarid Watershed in Southeastern Utah, Journal of Range Management, 29(2): 109-113.

Conrad, C.E and Charles E. Poulton. 1966. Effect of a Wild fire on Idaho Fescue and Bluebunch Wheatgrass. Journal of Range Management (19): 138-141. De Clerck-Floate, Rosemarie (1997) Cattle as Dispersers of hound’s-tongue on Rangeland in

Southeastern British Columbia, Journal of Range Management, 50(3): 239-243. Gillen, R.L., W.C. Krueger and R.F. Miller (1984) Cattle Distribution on Mountain Rangeland

in Northeastern Oregon, Journal of Range Management, 37(6): 549-553.

Sherman Pass

Range Report Page 35

Goodman, Linda 2005. Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants and accompanying Record of Decision, US Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

Heady, Harold F. and Child, R. Dennis (1994) Rangeland Ecology and Management. Westview

Press, Inc., 5500 Central Avenue, Boulder, Colorado 80301-2877. Holechek, Jerry L. (1981) Livestock Grazing Impacts on Public Lands: A Viewpoint, Journal of

Range Management, 34(3): 251-254. National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 2001. Fire Effects Guide. Available online:

http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/RxFire/FEG.pdf. 313 p. Miller, Richard F. and William Krueger (1976) Cattle Use on Summer Foothill Rangelands in

Northeastern Oregon, Journal of Range Management, 29(5): 367-371. Pearson, H.A., J.R. Davis and G.H. Schubert (1972) Effects of Wildfire on Timber and Forage

Production in Arizona, Journal of Range Management, 25(4): 250-253. Raish, C. and A.M. McSweeney (2003) Economic, social, and cultural aspects of livestock

ranching on the Española and Canjilon Ranger Districts of the Santa Fe and Carson National Forests: a pilot study. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-113. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 89 pp.

Ryan, K.C. 2002. Dynamic interactions between forest structure and fire behavior in boreal ecosystems. Silva Fennica 36(1): 13-39. Sanders, K.D. 2000. How long should rangelands be rested from livestock grazing following a

fire? University of Idaho. Available online: http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/range/publications/fire.pdf. (4p).

Talbott Roche, Cindy, Roger L. Sheley and Robert C. Korfhage (2008) Native Species Replace Introduced Grass Cultivars Seeded following Wildfire, Ecological Resoration, 26(4): 321-330.

Torrence, James F. (1988) Colville National Forest Land and Resource Management plan, Final

Environmental Impact Statement and accompanying Record of Decision, US Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

USDA Census of Agriculture (2007). Internet report

search. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Washington/st53_2_011_011.pdf

Wilson, Tom (1960) Integration in the Use of Public and Private Range in Pacific Northwest

Ranching, Journal of Range Management, 13(4): 195-197.

Sherman Pass

Range Report Page 36

Wright, Henry A. (1974) Range Burning, Journal of Range Management, 27(1): 5-11. Written By: /s/ Travis Fletcher Travis Fletcher Rangeland Management Specialist /s/ Brandon Weinmann Brandon Weinmann Rangeland Management Specialist