United States Lower Piru Rangelandsa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2011. 9....

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

September 2011

Lower Piru Rangelands

Environmental Assessment

Ojai Ranger District Los Padres National Forest

Ventura and Los Angeles Counties, California

For further information, contact:

Irvin Fox-Fernandez

Resource Officer

Ojai Ranger District

1190 E. Ojai Ave.

Ojai, CA 93023

(805) 646-4348

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 to

USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC

20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal

opportunity provider and employer.

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Document Structure ............................................................................................................................. 1

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

1.3 Purpose and Need for Action ............................................................................................................... 8

1.4 Proposed Action................................................................................................................................... 9

1.5 Management Direction ........................................................................................................................ 9

1.6 Decision Framework .......................................................................................................................... 11

1.7 Public Involvement ............................................................................................................................ 11

1.8 Issues ................................................................................................................................................. 12

2.0 Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 13

2.1 Alternatives Studied in Detail ............................................................................................................ 13

2.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study .......................................................... 41

2.3 Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................................................... 42

3.0 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 45

3.1 Water and Soils .................................................................................................................................. 45

3.2 Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, Management Indicator, and Migratory Bird Species ............... 53

3.3 Cultural Sites ..................................................................................................................................... 90

3.4 Noxious and Invasive Weeds ............................................................................................................. 92

3.5 Recreation .......................................................................................................................................... 94

3.6 Special Designation Areas ................................................................................................................. 97

4.0 Consultation and Coordination .............................................................................. 118

List of Tables

Table 1.2-1. Lower Piru Rangelands allotment acres under current management. .................................................................................................................. 2

Table 1.5.-1. Suitable acres of the Lower Piru Rangelands under current management in the project area. The percentage of NFS lands that have suitable rangelands is shown. ....................................................................................... 11

Table 2.1-1. Maximum permitted livestock head months, season of use, and suitable acres for NFS lands under the current management alternative. No livestock grazing is authorized for the Piru and Pothole Allotments, therefore no permitted livestock numbers or season of use are listed. .............................................. 15

Table 2.1-2. National Forest System Roads utilized for allotment and livestock management purposes under the current management alternative. ............................. 16

Table 2.1-3. Authorized non-system roads utilized for allotment and livestock management purposes under the current management alternative. (See also Figure 2.1-1) .................................................................................................................. 17

Table 2.1-4. Authorized non-system trails permitted under the current management alternative. (See also Figure 2.1-1) ......................................................... 17

Table 2.1-5. Summary of rangeland monitoring activities at key areas and other sites under the current management alternative. .......................................................... 21

Table 2.1-6. Proposed actions to meet purpose and needs. The need for action proposes to change the existing resource conditions to meet or move toward desired conditions. ........................................................................................................ 24

Table 2.1-7. Maximum permitted livestock head months, season of use, and suitable acres for NFS lands under the proposed action alternative. ............................ 28

Table 2.1-8. Range improvements eliminated from the project area as a result of removing private land from the Pothole Allotment. (See also Figure 1-2.1) .............. 29

Table 2.1-9. Proposed improvements for the project area. (See also Figure 2.1-2) ................................................................................................................................... 29

Table 2.1-10. National Forest System Roads utilized under the proposed action alternative. ‘None’ describes a road outside allotment boundaries. ............................. 30

Table 2.1-11. The authorized non-system roads under the proposed action alternative. (See also Figure 2.1-2) ............................................................................... 32

Table 2.1-12. Eliminated and converted authorized non-system roads on National Forest System lands. ...................................................................................... 33

Table 2.1-13. National Forest System and authorized non-system trails (miles) utilized and eliminated under the proposed action alternative. All trails are non-motorized except for the Reasoner Canyon Trail. All trails were previously permitted for livestock access and allotment management under the 2002 term grazing permits. ............................................................................................................. 34

Table 2.1-14. National Forest System Trails no longer authorized under the proposed action alternative. These trails were previously permitted under past grazing permits. ............................................................................................................. 35

Table 2.1-15. Summary of rangeland monitoring activities at key areas and other sites under the proposed action alternative. ......................................................... 39

Table 2.3-1. Comparison of alternatives by issue and need statements. ..................... 43

Table 3.1-1. Watershed disturbance summary. ............................................................ 46

Table 3.1-2. Past watershed grazing impact summary................................................. 47

Table 3.1-3. Watershed grazing impact summary. ....................................................... 48

Table 3.1-4. Universal soil loss equation (USLE) model results. .................................. 49

Table 3.1-5. Geology (GEO) model results. ................................................................. 49

Table 3.1-6. Equivalent roaded area/threshold of concern (ERA/TOC) model results. ........................................................................................................................... 49

Table 3.2-1. Comparison of the effects of each alternative on federally listed threatened and endangered Forest Service sensitive, Forest Service management indicator, and migratory bird species. ...................................................... 54

Table 3.6-1. Authorized non-system roads within the allotments and the Sespe-Frazier Inventoried Roadless Area by alternative. ....................................................... 105

List of Figures

Figure 1.2-1. Lower Piru Rangeland Project area map with the current management boundary and all permitted range improvements. ..................................... 4

Figure 1.2-1a. Temescal Allotment area under current management. It provides a closer detail of permitted range improvements. ............................................. 5

Figure 1.2-1b. Head of Piru Reservoir area under current management. It provides a closer detail of permitted range improvements. ............................................. 6

Figure 2.1-1. Alternative 1 – Current Management Map. ............................................. 14

Figure 2.1-2. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Map. ..................................................... 23

Figure 3.6-1. Lower Piru Rangelands and Sespe-Frazier Inventoried Roadless Area Map. .................................................................................................................... 106

List of Appendices (separate document)

A – Forest Plan Desired Conditions & Standards and Guidance ................................... 1

B – Range Improvements .............................................................................................. 6

C – Range Management Best Management Practices .................................................. 7

D – Five Step Screening Process for Riparian Conservation Areas .............................. 9

E – Public Involvement Summary ................................................................................ 11

F – Literature Cited and Documents Incorporated by Reference ................................. 61

Lower Piru Rangelands Environmental Assessment

1 | P a g e

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Document Structure __________________________________

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and other relevant federal and state laws

and regulations. The EA is also required by Section 504(a) of The Rescission Act of 1995, which

directs the Forest Service to develop a schedule for the completion of NEPA analyses on existing

livestock grazing allotments. The direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that

would result from the proposed action and associated alternatives within the predetermined

analysis area boundary are disclosed in this document. The decision will be documented in a

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact accompanying the final EA after

receiving and considering public comment.

The document is organized into five parts:

Introduction: This chapter includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency‟s proposal for achieving that purpose and

need. This section also details the acts, regulations, policies, and plans that frame the project,

and how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal.

Alternatives: This chapter describes the different alternatives considered by the Forest Service for achieving the stated purpose and need of this analysis. Some of these alternatives

were studied in detail and others were dismissed from detailed analysis. The proposed action

was developed in response to significant issues raised by the public and other agencies, and is

discussed in more detail in this chapter. The chapter concludes with a summary table of the

environmental consequences associated with each alternative.

Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by the

significant issues raised by the public. Within each section, the affected environment is

described first, followed by the effects of the Current Management, Proposed Action, and No

Action-No Grazing Alternatives.

Consultation and Coordination: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment.

Appendices: This section provides more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the environmental assessment including public comments. Appendices are

included in a supplemental document.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be

found in the project planning record located at the Los Padres National Forest (LPNF), Ojai

Ranger District Office in Ojai, California.


2 | P a g e

1.2 Background

The Lower Piru Rangelands (project area) are primarily on the Ojai Ranger District, LPNF near

Piru Reservoir in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties, California. The eastern portion of the

project area is within the Angeles National Forest (ANF); however the livestock grazing activity

in this portion is administered by the LPNF. The project area includes three grazing allotments:

the Piru, Pothole, and Temescal Allotments (Figures 1.2-1, 1.2-1a, 1.2-1b). These allotments

include private and National Forest System (NFS) lands creating a logical grazing area

promoting efficient use of intermingled land ownership.

The Piru Allotment is located on the LPNF and ANF in Canton Canyon northeast of Piru

Reservoir. The southeast portion of the allotment boundary follows the national forest

administrative boundary. The remaining allotment boundary lines meander along unsuitable

vegetation types and ridgelines that create effective barriers to livestock movement. The

allotment encompasses 3,495 total acres; 3,102 acres on NFS lands (2,679 acres administered by

LPNF), and 393 acres on private lands (Table 1.2-1).

The Pothole Allotment is located northwest of Piru Reservoir and is divided into two units: the

Pothole and Lisk Units. The Pothole Unit is located northwest of the Lisk Unit and within the

Sespe Wilderness. The Lisk Unit includes a small piece of wilderness and a large portion of

United Water Conservation District (UWCD) lands. The Pothole Unit includes 933 acres (all

NFS lands) and the Lisk Unit encompasses 2,785 total acres; 2,204 acres on NFS lands, and 581

acres on private (mostly UWCD) lands (Table 1.2-1).

The Temescal Allotment is located west of Piru Reservoir and is divided into two units:

Reasoner and Rodeo Flat Units. The Reasoner Unit is located within Reasoner Canyon and the

lower half of Dominquez Canyon. The Rodeo Flat Unit is located in the upper half of

Dominquez Canyon west of the Reasoner Unit and is partially within the Sespe Wilderness and

Sespe Condor Sanctuary. The Temescal Allotment encompasses 3,682 total acres; 2,916 acres

on NFS lands, and 766 acres on private lands (Table 1.2-1).

Table 1.2-1. Lower Piru Rangelands allotment acres under current management.

Allotment (Unit) NFS Acres Other Ownership Acres Total Percent NFS Land

Piru 3102 393 3495 89

Pothole (Lisk) 2204 581 2785 79

Pothole (Pothole) 933 0 933 100

Temescal (Reasoner) 1824 499 2323 79

Temescal (Rodeo Flat) 1092 267 1359 80

TOTAL 9155 1740 10895 84

* Numbers generated from current GIS data.

Allotment and unit boundaries are a combination of fence lines, natural barriers, watershed

boundaries, and other lines such as administrative boundaries and section lines. They represent

the extent of authorized livestock grazing. All lands within the allotment and unit boundaries are

considered part of the allotment or unit regardless of ownership. For these types of allotments,


3 | P a g e

the Forest Service issues term grazing permits with provisions that account for the percentage of

private grazing acres.


4 | P a g e

Figure 1.2-1. Lower Piru Rangeland Project area map with the current management boundary and all permitted range improvements.


5 | P a g e

Figure 1.2-1a. Temescal Allotment area under current management. It provides a closer detail of permitted range improvements.


6 | P a g e

Figure 1.2-1b. Head of Piru Reservoir area under current management. It provides a closer detail of permitted range improvements.


7 | P a g e

History

Livestock grazing occurred on lands part of the LPNF prior to establishment of the NFS in 1891

(USDA-FS 2005e, pg. 289). Within the project area livestock grazing dates back to the 1880‟s

(King 2011). Improvements, including fences, water developments, roads and trails, were

constructed and used to support the management of livestock and the rangeland. The roads and

trails were authorized in accordance with the terms and conditions of term grazing permits issued

by the Forest Service. These permits required the permittee to maintain and repair

improvements, including roads and trails. Over time, some of these roads and trails have

returned to natural conditions as a result of non-use.

During the past thirty years, authorized livestock grazing and associated improvements in the

project area has remained fairly constant. Two livestock grazing operators have each been

issued separate term grazing permits for the project area on a recurring basis. One permit

authorized livestock grazing on the Piru, Pothole, and Temescal (Reasoner Unit) Allotments.

The second permit authorized grazing on the Temescal Allotment (Rodeo Flat Unit).

Since the late 1970‟s, management of the Piru and Pothole Allotments was conducted in

conjunction with a grazing permit issued by UWCD to the same permittee. The permittee grazed

livestock and managed the Forest Service, private, and UWCD lands together as one

management unit.

In 2002, the Forest Service re-issued two term grazing permits for the three grazing allotments.

Subsequently, following the issuance of these term grazing permits, the UWCD informed the

permittee that the grazing lease would be discontinued due to conflicts with visitor use and

endangered species concerns. This had an impact on management of the Piru and Pothole

grazing allotments on NFS lands. These changes meant the Forest Service needed to prevent

livestock from entering UWCD lands to restrict the livestock from accessing endangered species

habitat both on UWCD and NFS lands. In order for the Forest Service to meet its obligations

under the Endangered Species Act, a change was made to the 2002 permit for the Piru and

Pothole Allotments.

In response, the Forest Service determined that the adjacent Pothole and Piru Allotments should

be rested from continued livestock grazing until an environmental analysis could be completed to

evaluate the effects of reinitiating livestock grazing on those allotments. Subsequently, the term

grazing permits were amended to reflect this change in authorized use. Since then, livestock use

and allotment management in the project area has only been authorized for the Temescal

Allotment. Upon expiration of both term permits in 2008 and 2011 respectively, temporary one-

year grazing permits have been issued for the Reasoner and Rodeo Flat Units of the Temescal

Allotment.


8 | P a g e

1.3 Purpose and Need for Action __________________________

Purpose

The purpose of this action is to determine whether to authorize livestock grazing on all, some

portion, or none of the Piru, Pothole, and Temescal Allotments.

Need

The overall need is to ensure that livestock grazing is managed in a manner that moves towards

desired resource conditions consistent with multiple use goals within the 2005 Los Padres

National Forest Land Management Plan (Forest Plan). Specifically, there is a need to:

1. Comply with Forest Service policy (FSM 2203.1) to make forage available to qualified livestock operators that are suitable for livestock grazing consistent with the Forest

Plan.

The Forest Plan provides direction to maintain sustainable grazing opportunities on healthy

rangelands, with fully functional and productive watershed conditions (USDA-FS 2005a, pp.

42-43 & USDA-FS 2005b, pg. 141). Field investigations contained in the project record

demonstrate that areas currently being grazed are meeting or moving towards desired

conditions. Additionally, small ranches permitted to use allotments have historically relied

on forage provided by Forest Service rangelands in the Piru, Pothole, and Temescal

Allotments for viable ranch operations.

2. Mitigate livestock grazing impacts to threatened and endangered species habitats at

specified locations.

According to the Forest Plan Goal 5.2, the desired condition for riparian condition is that

watercourses are functioning properly and support healthy populations of native and desired

nonnative riparian dependent species (USDA-FS 2005a, pg. 41). The Forest Plan also states

to provide ecological conditions to sustain viable populations of native and desired nonnative

species (Goal 6.2) (USDA-FS 2005a, pg. 44). In 2003, livestock were removed from the Piru

and Pothole Allotments to mitigate impacts to species habitat in certain riparian areas until an

environmental analysis could be completed to evaluate the effects of reinitiating livestock

grazing. Prior to 2003, livestock were entering riparian areas on United Water Conservation

District (UWCD) lands immediately west and north of Piru Reservoir (SBBM, T 5N, R 18W,

Sections 15 and 22) where the endangered arroyo toad and southwestern willow flycatcher,

and federally designated critical habitat exists. Since then, areas north of Piru Reservoir have

also been listed as federally designated critical habitat for the threatened California red-

legged frog. In addition, within certain areas of Reasoner Creek (SBBM, T 5N, R 18W,

Sections 20, 28, 29, & 33) there is a need to protect flycatcher riparian habitat, which prior to

the 2005 flood event was suitable habitat for southwestern willow flycatcher as well as other

riparian dependent wildlife.


9 | P a g e

3. Determine the suitability of roads in Wilderness and Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) that provide access within the allotments for management.

A network of non-system roads has been used historically to access and manage livestock

grazing on the allotments. However, the use and maintenance of these roads have not been

evaluated as to whether they are compatible with Wilderness (FSM 2320) and Inventoried

Roadless Area (CFR 294) policy and regulations. Roads are needed to manage the allotment,

including the ingress and egress of livestock, access to range improvements, and to complete

allotment monitoring. The current authorized road network needs to be evaluated for

continued use and maintenance.

4. Prevent livestock from trespassing onto UWCD lands and impacting recreation in the Lake Piru Recreation Area.

Historic grazing permits for the Piru and Pothole Allotments included lands administered by

the UWCD. In 2002, the UWCD informed the permittee that the grazing lease would be

discontinued on their lands due to recreation and resource concerns. To mitigate the

potential of livestock roaming onto adjacent UWCD lands in the Piru and Pothole

Allotments, the Forest Service removed livestock from these two allotments until an

environmental analysis could be completed.

1.4 Proposed Action _____________________________________

The LPNF proposes to authorize livestock grazing on suitable NFS lands within the Piru, Pothole

(Lisk and Pothole Units), and Temescal (Reasoner and Rodeo Flat Units) Range Allotments.

The proposed action is the result of extensive analysis and consultation with interested

individuals and groups over the last nine years, and meets the purpose and need.

The proposed action incorporates adaptive management principles. Adaptive management is a

process that allows the Forest Service officer in charge the flexibility to respond to changing

conditions over time within bounds set by this NEPA analysis. Considering the extended

timeframe of a typical Term Grazing Permit (10 years), management flexibility is important to

respond to changing environmental conditions from one year to the next.

The proposed action includes a monitoring plan to determine whether actions are being

implemented as planned, and if so, if adequate progress toward desired conditions is being

attained. Monitoring information would inform management of the allotment and identify any

deficiencies that need adjustment or change within the scope of the effects analyzed in this

document. A full description of the proposed action is in Chapter 2 of this document.

1.5 Management Direction ________________________________

National forest management is guided by laws, regulations, and policies that provide the

framework for all levels of planning. This includes regional guides, the Forest Plan, and site-

specific planning documents such as this EA. By tiering this project to the Forest Plan, it is

expected that all applicable federal, state, or local laws would be met.


10 | P a g e

Law

Congress intends to allow grazing on suitable lands where it is consistent with other multiple use

goals and objectives as provided through several Congressional Acts: Multiple Use Sustained

Yield Act of 1960, Wilderness Act of 1964, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Forest and

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, Federal Land Policy and Management

Act of 1976, and National Forest Management Act of 1976.

Regulations and Policies

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

that are suitable for livestock grazing consistent with land management plans (36 CFR 222.2(c);

FSM 2203.1). Term grazing permits are generally issued for ten-year periods (FSM 2203.1).

Forest Plan

The Forest Plan provides guidance for all management activities, establishes management

standards and guidelines, and describes resource management practices (availability and

suitability of lands for resource management). Additionally, the Forest Plan provides the

framework to guide resource management operations of the forest, and subsequent land and

resource management decisions made during project planning. The National Forest Management

Act of 1976 requires that resource plans, permits, contracts, and other instruments issued for the

use and occupancy of federal lands be consistent with the Forest Plan. Site-specific project

decisions must be consistent with the Forest Plan, unless the Forest Plan is modified with an

amendment. This EA is a project-level analysis and evaluates the proposed action‟s

conformance with the Forest Plan.

The project area is primarily within the Ojai-Piru Front Country Place, for which the desired

condition is a naturally appearing landscape that serves as a high-quality recreation area and

scenic backdrop to nearby communities (USDA-FS 2005b, pg. 70). The Pothole Unit and the

western part of Rodeo Flat Unit are in the Sespe Place. The desired condition for the Sespe

Place is a naturally evolving landscape providing primitive recreation opportunities (USDA-FS

2005b, pg. 83). Livestock grazing is a recognized use in these two Forest Plan designations

(USDA-FS 2005b, pp. 69 & 82).

A description of the Forest Plan goals and standards considered in the analysis can be found in

Appendix A.

Suitable Lands

The Forest Plan determined that the Piru, Pothole, and Temescal Allotments are suitable. As

outlined in the Forest Plan, an interdisciplinary team (IDT) completed range analysis to verify

site specific capability and suitability of livestock grazing on these allotments (USDA-FS 2005c,

Appendix J). Rangeland capability represents the biophysical determination of those areas of

land that can sustain domestic livestock grazing. Suitable rangelands are a subset of capable

rangelands where livestock use is found to be compatible with other uses: ecological, social, and


11 | P a g e

economic considerations and the ability to meet or move toward Forest Plan desired conditions.

Permitted livestock numbers are dependent on the acreage and forage production of suitable

rangelands.

Table 1.5.-1. Suitable acres of the Lower Piru Rangelands under current management in the project area. The percentage of NFS lands that have suitable rangelands is shown.

Allotment (Unit) Total NFS

Acres NFS Suitable

Acres % NFS Suitable

Piru 3102 490 16

Pothole (Lisk) 2204 507 23

Pothole (Pothole) 933 184 20

Temescal (Reasoner) 1824 574 31

Temescal (Rodeo Flats) 1092 379 35

Suitable rangelands are further divided into primary and secondary range. Primary range is

easily accessible and contains high forage value and palatability in comparison to the rest of the

allotment‟s vegetation. The secondary range terrain is steeper making it less desirable or

accessible by livestock and contains lower forage value and palatability of vegetation than

primary areas.

1.6 Decision Framework

The EA discloses the environmental consequences of implementing the proposed action and

alternatives to that action. The responsible official will review the EA and make a decision

whether to authorize grazing on the Piru, Pothole (Lisk and Pothole Units), and Temescal

(Reasoner and Rodeo Flat Units) Range Allotments. A separate Decision Notice and Finding of

No Significant Impact, signed by the responsible official, will explain the management and

environmental rationale for selecting an alternative to be implemented. If a decision is made to

authorize grazing, then Term Grazing Permits, Allotment Management Plans, and Annual

Operating Instructions will be issued in compliance with the decision.

1.7 Public Involvement __________________________________

Several methods were used to solicit comments from members of the public, agencies, tribes,

permittees, adjacent property owners, and organizations. The project was listed in the LPNF

Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) prior to 2003 through 2011. A scoping letter was mailed

to potentially interested members of the public, adjacent land owners, tribal representatives,

organizations and other public agencies on June 2, 2003. More recently, the document was

subject to a formal 30-day notice and comment period, which occurred August 28 to September

28, 2009. A second 30-day notice and comment period was provided on September 2, 2010, to

allow for full disclosure after the Rodeo Flat Unit boundary was adjusted to include a previously

omitted wilderness area. All comments from scoping and formal comment notices have been

analyzed and answered as appropriate either in the document or by direct response.


12 | P a g e

A list of individuals and groups who submitted specific comments throughout the project

planning process, their comments, and Forest Service consideration of comments is summarized

in Appendix E.

1.8 Issues _____________________________________________

Through a series of meetings and conference calls, the IDT reviewed comments received during

scoping and public involvement efforts. Public comments were used to identify potential issues.

The following is a description of issues identified by the IDT for the project area.

Issue 1 - Water and Soils: Livestock grazing has the potential to affect water quality and

introduce fecal coliform and cryptosporidium into Piru Reservoir. Livestock grazing also has the

potential to affect soil porosity and soil density leading to increase soil erosion. This issue is

addressed in Section 3.1 of this EA.

Issue 2 - Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, Management Indicator, and Migratory Bird

Species: Livestock grazing and associated road use and maintenance can affect national forest

plant and animal species and species federally listed as threatened and endangered and their

critical habitats, including the California condor, California red-legged frog, arroyo toad, and

southwestern willow flycatcher. This issue is addressed in Section 3.2 of this EA and in the

Biological Evaluation (BE) and Biological Assessment (BA) for this project. (See project record)

Issue 3 - Cultural Sites: Livestock grazing and range improvements have the potential to affect

historic and traditional cultural properties, and may conflict with cultural values held in regard

by Native American and other ethnic groups. This issue is addressed in Section 3.3 of the EA.

Issue 4 - Noxious and Invasive Weeds: Localized heavy grazing can reduce foliage density and

increase the amount of bare ground, thereby creating sites available to non-native invasive

species. The amount of vegetation (forage) removed can affect plant species diversity. This

issue is addressed in Section 3.4 of the EA.

Issue 5 - Recreation: Proposed fence improvements may impact visual quality from Blue Point

landmark and livestock grazing may impact recreation on the Pothole Trail. This issue is

addressed in Section 3.5 of the EA.

Issue 6-Special Designation Areas: Livestock grazing and roads may impact values and

characteristics associated with the Sespe Wilderness, Sespe Condor Sanctuary, Sespe-Frazier

Inventoried Roadless Area (SFIRA), and Wild and Scenic River. This issue is addressed in

Section 3.6 of the EA.


13 | P a g e

2.0 Alternatives

This chapter describes the three alternatives considered for the Lower Piru Rangelands Project.

The interdisciplinary team considered the following elements when developing the alternatives

for this analysis: public scoping and internal review by the Forest Service; the purpose and need

for this project; responsiveness to issues as identified in Chapter 1; site-specific resource

information; and acts, regulations, policies, and plans governing land management on National

Forest System lands. An alternative comparison is displayed in Table 2.3-1 of this chapter.

2.1 Alternatives Studied in Detail __________________________

Alternative 1 – Current Management

The allotments would continue to be authorized and managed in accordance with the current

permitted use, which only authorizes livestock grazing on the Temescal Allotment. Livestock

grazing is not authorized on the Piru and Pothole Allotments and the allotments would be

designated as vacant. The range improvements within the Piru and Pothole Allotments would

not be authorized for use by a term grazing permit (Figure 2.1-1).


14 | P a g e

Figure 2.1-1. Alternative 1 – Current Management Map.


15 | P a g e

Livestock Grazing

The Temescal Allotment consists of suitable rangelands both on NFS lands and private lands that

would be grazed as one continuous area. NFS lands would be administered by the Forest

Service, and non-NFS lands administered by the private land owner. With this alternative the

permittee would be permitted to graze livestock numbers displayed in Table 2.1-1.

Table 2.1-1. Maximum permitted livestock head months, season of use, and suitable acres for NFS lands under the current management alternative. No livestock grazing is authorized for the Piru and Pothole Allotments, therefore no permitted livestock numbers or season of use are listed.

Allotment (Unit)

Total Acres

1

Total Suitable Acres

2

NFS Suitable

Acres

% NFS Suitable

Acres

Season of Use

NFS Head

Months (HM)

3

Permitted

Piru 3495 746 490 66

N/A N/A

Pothole 3718 1059 691 65

Temescal (Reasoner)

2323 872 574 66 3/1-2/28 168

Temescal (Rodeo Flat)

1359 549 379 69 3/1-2/28 48

1. Allotment acres calculated in ArcGIS using 2002 Term Range Permit maps. 2. Suitable acres are areas of primary and secondary rangeland forage that is available for livestock to graze. 3. Head Months (HM) refers to the number of head (cow/calf, bull, yearling, or combination) times months in season of use.

Reasoner Unit - The permittee has been authorized to graze 14 cow/calf pairs from March 1 to

February 28 for 168 head months on range 66% NFS lands in the Reasoner Unit (Table 2.1.-1).

The percentage of suitable acres on NFS land and range monitoring history determines the

permitted livestock grazing use (NFS Head Months Permitted) on NFS lands. Depending upon

the time of year, forage production, and range condition, livestock would be rotated within the

grazing areas of the Reasoner Unit, and between private and NFS lands.

Rodeo Unit - The permittee has been authorized to graze 4 cow/calf pairs from March 1 to

February 28 for 48 head months on range 69% NFS land in the Rodeo Unit (Table 2.1.-1). The

percentage of suitable acres on NFS land and range monitoring history determines the permitted

livestock grazing use (NFS Head Months Permitted) on NFS lands. Depending upon the time of

year, forage production, and range condition, livestock would be rotated within the grazing areas

of the Reasoner Unit, and between private and NFS lands.

Range Improvements

The permittees are responsible for the maintenance of structural range improvements in

accordance with Forest Service standards as per terms and conditions in part 2 of the term


16 | P a g e

grazing permits. Routine maintenance of range improvements (e.g., trough maintenance,

cleaning, repair or replacement in kind; fence mending; spring box repair or cleaning; water pipe

repair or replacement; or other similar maintenance of improvements) is completed by the

permittees as authorized by the forest officer in charge. The range improvements listed in

Appendix B and displayed in Figure 1.2-1 were authorized for the Piru, Pothole, and Temescal Allotments under the original 2002 Term Grazing Permits. The current management alternative

column displays those range improvements that are authorized under the current permits, and

would be permitted under this alternative. Fence lines are not listed in Appendix B and are

displayed in Figure 2.1-1.

Private land improvements within the project area have been included to show how livestock are

managed in the allotments, and how livestock move between private and NFS lands within the

allotments. Private land range improvements are typically not monitored or inspected by the

Forest Service. Road and trail improvements are listed in tables 2.1-7 and 2.1-8.

Roads

Two types of roads are on NFS lands within or adjacent to the Temescal Allotment: National

Forest System Roads (NFSR) and authorized non-system roads. NFSRs serve multiple uses, and

are managed and maintained as part of the National Forest Transportation System. Three NFSRs

provide access to the project area, 4N13 (Piru Canyon Road), 4N14 (Dominguez Canyon Road),

and 4N14A (Lime Canyon Road). The Forest Service maintains these roads in accordance with

road management objectives and Forest Service standards and guidelines.

Table 2.1-2. National Forest System Roads utilized for allotment and livestock management purposes under the current management alternative.

Allotment (Unit)

Road Name Road Number

Road Length (Miles)

National Forest Private Total

IRA Wilderness Other

None Piru Canyon Road NFS Road 4N13 1.0 1.0

Temescal (Reasoner

and Rodeo Flat)

Dominguez Canyon Road NFS Road 4N14 3 0.9 3.9

Temescal (Reasoner)

Lime Canyon Road NFS Road 4N14A 1.3 0.1 1.4

Authorized non-system roads are another type of road on NFS lands within the project area.

These are listed in Table 2.1-3. Closed to public entry, these roads are used almost exclusively

for vehicle access and livestock ingress and egress for allotment management and maintenance.

Other authorized activities include private land access, Forest Service administrative access, and

wildfire suppression operations. Authorized non-system roads are authorized by a special use

permit. Private land roads within the Temescal Allotment are included only to show how

livestock are managed between private and NFS lands within the allotment. Some private roads

are not authorized for permittee use from other private landowners. Maintenance of authorized

non-system roads is completed by the permittee in accordance with Forest Service standards with


17 | P a g e

oversight provided by the Forest Service. Maintenance is completed to retain or restore access

for high clearance four-wheel drive vehicles. In some instances, maintenance includes use of

heavy equipment (e.g., grader, bulldozer, or backhoe) to repair the road surface, drainage

features, and road corridor. Where a road intersects a stream channel, periodic maintenance is

required, particularly after winter flood events.

Table 2.1-3. Authorized non-system roads utilized for allotment and livestock management purposes under the current management alternative. (See also Figure 2.1-1)

Allotment (Unit)

Road Name

Road Length (Miles)



Temescal (Reasoner)

Reasoner Canyon Road 1.1 0.7 1.8

Lime Canyon Road West 0.4 0.4

Lime Canyon Road East 0.4 0.4


Rodeo Flat Unit Roads 0.1 0.3 0.1 2.3 2.8

Trails

Two National Forest System Trails (NFSTs) are within or adjacent to the project area: NFST

19W10 (Aqua Blanca Trail) and NFST 18W04 (Pothole Trail). NFST 19W10 is outside the

project area, but NFST 18W04 travels through the Pothole Allotment. Other non-system non-

motorized trails are authorized to provide foot and livestock access within the project area.

Private land trails are included only to show how livestock are managed between private and

NFS lands within the project area. The authorized non-system trails may receive maintenance to

retain the route for continued livestock management use. Hand tools and motorized power tools

may be used to complete maintenance to the trail tread, drainage features, and prevent vegetation

encroachment within the trail corridor.

Table 2.1-4. Authorized non-system trails permitted under the current management alternative. (See also Figure 2.1-1)

Allotment (Unit)

Description

Trail Length (Miles)



Temescal (Reasoner)

Multiple unnamed trails 2.6 3.4 0.8 6.8


Multiple unnamed trails 2.1 2.6 3.0 1.2 8.9


18 | P a g e

Resource Protection Measures and Strategies

In the planning and implementation of management activities, the Forest Service uses many

resource protection measures and strategies to reduce or prevent negative impacts to natural

resources and the environment and to meet or move towards desired conditions. The current

management alternative will implement the following resource protection measures on the

Temescal Allotment and will be incorporated into new term grazing permits. The applicable

Forest Plan standards, guidelines, and strategies are included in Appendix A.

a. Utilize Best Management Practices (USDA-FS 2000) described in Appendix C. b. Apply the Five-Step Project Screening Process for Riparian Conservation Areas (S47)

described in Forest Plan Appendix E (USDA-FS 2005c, pg. 11). Application of this process

to this project is shown in Appendix D.

c. Manage water developments to sustain both the needs of spring site surroundings as well as off-site water. Management practices may include: 1) controlling availability of developed

water to livestock, 2) hauling water to temporary tanks to influence livestock distribution and

obtain use in areas that normally receive light to no use (location of tanks may be moved

around the allotment), 3) constructing new water developments to mitigate resource concerns

(option 3 would require a supplemental NEPA document and decision). Fencing the spring

source and habitat may also be necessary depending on the distance to the off-site water.

d. Reconstruct and/or replace existing range improvements in the same footprint when their useful life expectancy is reached, or to respond to natural events (e.g., fire or floods).

e. Ground disturbing activities such as installation of water developments, pipelines, fences or enclosures may require additional environmental analysis if not covered in this document.

Cultural resource and biological species surveys may be required prior to maintenance and

implementation of range improvements.

f. Application of pesticides (or other chemicals) is not authorized under this proposal. g. The permittee will be required to monitor noxious and invasive weeds and report any new

infestations to the Forest Service. The permittee will be required to make efforts to prevent

introduction of new noxious and invasive weeds, and to prevent or minimize the spread of

existing noxious and invasive weeds (USDA-FS 2005c, pp. 121-130) as deemed necessary.

If funding is available, focused treatments will be conducted on priority areas or new

infestations of invasive weeds.

h. To avoid adverse effects to California condor the Forest Service will communicate throughout the year with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) California Condor

Recovery Program to obtain nest site, foraging, and roosting activity within the project area.

The objective is to “Avoid or minimize disturbance to breeding and roosting California

condors by prohibiting or restricting management activities and human uses within 1.5 miles

of active California condor nest sites and within 0.5 miles of active roosts” (Standard 28)

(USDA-FS 2005c, pg. 8).

i. Motorized cross-country travel may be authorized only where existing roads do not provide adequate access to conduct allotment management and maintenance of improvements.

Motorized cross-country travel will be limited and by exception only. It will require prior

review and authorization from the Forest Service officer in charge before implementation.

The review will evaluate the need for the use, ensure the minimum tool is used, and ensure

resources are protected. In the Sespe-Frazier IRA (SFIRA), ATVs should be strongly


19 | P a g e

considered over high clearance vehicles. Only temporary authorizations will be given to

specific requests and will specify when and where travel may occur. Recurring use of an

access way will be avoided to ensure a route is not established on the landscape. Additional

considerations include time of year to mitigate soil impacts and fire hazards. Cross-country

travel will be included in regular monitoring.

j. To protect the SFIRA and wilderness characteristics, maintenance of authorized non-system roads in the SFIRA or wilderness will not exceed historic levels, and will not result in the

improvement or an increase in the use of the roads.

Monitoring

Monitoring of the allotment consists of two methods: annual implementation (short-term)

monitoring and effectiveness (long-term) monitoring. Implementation monitoring is completed

annually or as needed, and evaluates whether livestock management is being applied as

prescribed. The Forest Service, with the assistance and cooperation from the permit holders,

conducts this type of monitoring through inspections of the allotments to evaluate whether

livestock management is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the term grazing

permits.

Effectiveness monitoring determines whether the project area is meeting or moving toward

desired conditions, and if the rate of change is acceptable (within the scope of this analysis). The

rate of acceptable change is determined by the Forest Service officer in charge unless otherwise

directed. If the monitoring shows that Forest Plan or project-specific desired conditions are not

being met, the Forest Service officer in charge reviews the situation to determine an appropriate

change in management to improve conditions. Monitoring of allotment and resource conditions

is completed in accordance with Forest Service requirements and in compliance with the Forest

Plan.

Table 2.1-5 describes the implementation and effectiveness monitoring strategy for the Temescal

Allotment. Key Area sites are those established rangeland monitoring locations. They are

defined as “a portion of the range, which, because of its location, grazing or browsing value,

and/or use serves as an indicative sample of range conditions, trend, or degree of use seasonally”

(USDA-FS 2005a, pp. 42-43). Other sites are monitored to determine what impact, if any,

grazing activities are having on biological and archaeological resources. Monitoring sites are

established in woodlands along grazed streams to ensure Forest standards are being met.

Woodlands along grazed streams are habitats along ephemeral or perennial stream corridors

where riparian vegetation may or may not exist. Some ephemeral stream corridors contain oak

woodland or chaparral vegetation, but no riparian vegetation.

Biological resource monitoring occurs regularly based on livestock management activities in

known threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) species habitats and breeding locations.

Regular coordination with the FWS California Condor Recovery Program occurs throughout the

year to determine breeding status and movements in the Ojai Ranger District surroundings.

Southwestern willow flycatcher (SWFL) breeding habitat assessments and bird surveys will

occur, if fencing is not maintained or installed to restrict livestock from potentially suitable

SWFL habitat in Reasoner Canyon. Additional biological surveys and monitoring of TES


20 | P a g e

species will occur as livestock management activities change, and with changes in status of

species.

Monitoring of known cultural resources within the allotments is necessary to ensure long-term

resource protection. Identified cultural resources are monitored periodically to establish

prescribed treatment measures and their effectiveness. If treatment measures are found not to be

effective or adverse impacts to cultural resources by rangeland use is noted, corrective measure

will be taken.


21 | P a g e

Table 2.1-5. Summary of rangeland monitoring activities at key areas and other sites under the current management alternative.

Type of Monitoring Key Areas Woodlands Along Grazed Streams

Other Sites

Annual Implementation Monitoring (improvements): water developments, fencing, gates, roads, trails, cattle guards, and salt locations.

Rodeo Flat, Reasoner Canyon, Dominguez Canyon, and Lime Canyon Spur

Annual Implementation Monitoring (overall): percent forage utilization, ground cover percentage estimates, snapshots at designated photo points as implemented through adaptive management, noxious weed survey, overland route, and effectiveness of resource protection measures.

Rodeo Flat, Reasoner Canyon, Dominguez Canyon, and Lime Canyon Spur

Annual Implementation Monitoring (riparian): ground cover percentage estimates, stream bank disturbance measurements, and woody perennial browse utilization measurements.

Dominguez Canyon and Reasoner Canyon

Dominguez Canyon and Reasoner Canyon

Effectiveness Monitoring (every 5-10 years) of rangeland health condition and trends: rooted frequency vegetative sampling in woodlands and grasslands (Region 5 methodology) when funding and personnel are available.

Rodeo Flat, Reasoner Canyon, and Dominguez Canyon

BMPEP Effectiveness Monitoring (every 5 years): monitoring using the USFS Region 5 grazing protocol and G24 field form. This form records herbaceous and woody utilization levels, stream bank disturbance, ground cover, bank angle, riparian and upslope erosion, seral condition of riparian vegetation, and condition of lentic habitats.

Rodeo Flat Dominguez Canyon

Annual biological surveys (TES species) and coordination: breeding and status of arroyo toad and other herpetofauna, California condor surveys, breeding bird surveys, and other species surveys as needed.

Known TES species habitats in Dominguez and Reasoner Canyon

Identified TES species habitats

Effectiveness Monitoring (periodically): known cultural resources will be monitored and documented to ensure that prescribed treatment measures are effective.

Identified cultural resource locations.


22 | P a g e

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Alternative 2, also referred to as the proposed action, is the result of extensive analysis and

consultation with interested individuals and groups over the last nine years. In summary, the

proposed action would allow livestock grazing to continue in the Temescal Allotment (Reasoner

and Rodeo Flat Units) similar to what has occurred in the recent past, and authorize livestock

grazing on the Piru and Pothole Allotments with appropriate mitigations and improvements as

necessary to protect resources.

The proposed action has been developed to meet the purpose and need for action as described in

Chapter 1 (Table 2.1-6), and has also been designed to respond to issues identified through

scoping activities. Alternative 2 is expected to result in protection of threatened, endangered,

and sensitive species and their habitats, including the arroyo toad and southwestern willow

flycatcher. Additionally, the proposed action has been designed to protect riparian conditions

and rangeland condition for long-term sustainability and future livestock grazing. This

alternative also includes revised boundaries for Piru, Pothole, and Temescal Allotments that

more accurately reflect natural barriers (Figure 2.1-2).


23 | P a g e

Figure 2.1-2. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Map.


24 | P a g e

This alternative is based on the principle of adaptive management, a process that uses focused

monitoring information to determine if management is meeting or making satisfactory movement

toward desired conditions, or if changes are needed to meet or move existing resource conditions

toward desired conditions. Adaptive management is a process that allows the Forest Service to

manage for changing conditions and new information over time. It gives the Forest Service

officer in charge the flexibility to adapt to change within the constraints imposed by the EA and

subsequent decision. As long as implementation continues to remain within the scope of the EA,

the Forest Service may choose to implement adaptive changes. Examples of adaptive changes

include adjusting dates for grazing, livestock numbers, class of animal, grazing system, and those

described in Table 2.1-6. If a needed change has not been evaluated within this EA, additional

NEPA analysis and decisions may be necessary.

Alternative 2 incorporates the improvements listed in Alternative 1 unless otherwise described.

The proposed action includes updates to livestock grazing use, proposed and eliminated

improvements, resource protection measures and strategies, adaptive management, and

monitoring. The livestock management elements differ from current management practices and

improvements described in Alternative 1.

The proposed action has been designed to address the needs identified in Section 1.3. Table 2.1-

6 describes the proposed actions and improvements that would meet the identified needs. For the

proposed actions and improvements, if monitoring determines they are not having the intended

effect, then the adaptive management options may be implemented.

Table 2.1-6. Proposed actions to meet purpose and needs. The need for action proposes to change the existing resource conditions to meet or move toward desired conditions.

Allotment (Unit)

Existing Condition Need for Action Improvements and Actions

Proposed

All

1 of 3 allotments (2,916 NFS acres) of the project area is authorized for livestock grazing.

Need #1 – Comply with Forest Service policy to make forage available to qualified livestock operators that are suitable for livestock grazing consistent with the Forest Plan.

Authorize livestock grazing on 3 of 3 allotments (9,301 NFS acres).

All

Network of roads and trails in the project area has been used for many years, but has not been evaluated for continued use.

Need #3 – Determine the suitability of roads in Wilderness and IRA that provide access within the allotments for management.

Roads

10 miles proposed for use.

0.1 miles eliminated.

0.7 miles converted to trail.

Consistency with Wilderness and IRA designations evaluated.


25 | P a g e

Allotment (Unit)


Proposed

Piru

If present, livestock could move freely from Piru Allotment to endangered arroyo toad and California red-legged frog species habitat in Piru Creek and Piru Reservoir. Fences across the mouth of Canton Canyon are no longer in place due to flood events.

Need #2 - Mitigate livestock grazing impacts to threatened and endangered species habitats at specified locations. Need #4 - Prevent livestock from trespassing onto UWCD lands and impacting recreation in the Lake Piru Recreation Area.

Re-install a 787 foot drift fence at the mouth of Canton Canyon to eliminate livestock from impacting riparian species and their habitats.

Whether entering or exiting the allotment, supervision is required by a qualified biologist

1 from

March to November in order for livestock and vehicles associated with allotment management to cross Piru Creek at Canton Canyon road.

If neither one of these actions results in meeting or moving toward desired conditions, then the use of the allotment will not be authorized for livestock grazing in the interest of resource protection.


26 | P a g e

Allotment (Unit)


Proposed

Pothole (Lisk)

Limited barriers exist to prevent livestock from accessing United Water Conservation District (UWCD) lands and impacting TES habitats, riparian areas, and Lake Piru Recreation Area.

Need #2 - Mitigate livestock grazing impacts to threatened and endangered species habitats at specified locations. Need #4 - Prevent livestock from trespassing onto UWCD lands and impacting recreation in the Lake Piru Recreation Area.

To restrict cattle from entering UWCD lands and Piru Creek:

Up to 6 miles of fence will be installed along the eastern allotment boundary between natural barriers.

If fence installations, natural barriers, and active herding do not effectively restrict cattle, then the season of use and/or authorized stocking rate would be adjusted and/or temporary improvements (e.g., water trough, salting, etc.) will be used to influence livestock distribution until progress is made toward desired conditions.

If neither one of those adaptive options result in meeting or moving toward desired conditions, then the use of the allotment unit will not be authorized for livestock grazing in the interest of resource protection.


27 | P a g e

Allotment (Unit)


Proposed

Temescal (Reasoner)

Existing fences and natural barriers do not restrict livestock from moving freely up and down Reasoner Creek. Two southwestern willow flycatcher (SWFL) habitat areas exist in middle Reasoner Creek (NFS) and lower Reasoner Creek (private land). Because of wildfires and subsequent flood events, SWLF habitat is not suitable for breeding, presently.

Need #2 - Mitigate livestock grazing impacts to threatened and endangered species habitats at specified locations.

To restrict cattle from the 1.6 mile perimeter of SWFL habitat areas (Figure 3.2-1) in middle and lower Reasoner Creek:

Existing fencing will be repaired and additional fencing will be installed around SWFL habitat.

If fence installations, natural barriers, and active herding do not effectively restrict cattle, then the season of use and/or authorized stocking rate would be adjusted and/or temporary improvements (e.g., water trough, salting, etc.) will be used to influence livestock distribution until progress is made toward desired conditions.

If neither one of those adaptive options result in meeting or moving toward desired conditions, then the use of the allotment unit will not be authorized for livestock grazing in the interest of resource protection.

1 A person authorized by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to handle federally listed species under an ESA Section 10(a) permit.

Livestock Grazing

This alternative proposes livestock use numbers greater than the current management alternative.

The increases are attributed to the addition of the Piru and Pothole Allotments to this alternative,

where livestock use and allotment management were excluded in previous term grazing permits.

In addition, the 2000 range analysis report and field analysis calculated an increase in total

suitable rangeland acres compared to past calculations. The season of use reflects the current

management alternative and past practice. The NFS head months result from monitoring of

livestock use on suitable rangelands and the capability of those rangelands to produce forage.


28 | P a g e

Table 2.1-7. Maximum permitted livestock head months, season of use, and suitable acres for NFS lands under the proposed action alternative.

Allotment Total Acres

Total Suitable

Acres

NFS Suitable

Acres

% NFS Suitable

Acres

Season of Use

NFS Head Months

(HM) Permitted

Piru 3587 688 476 69 3/1-2/28 132 HM

Pothole (Lisk)

2141 509 509

100 3/1-11/301

168 HM

Pothole (Pothole)

979 184 184 72 HM

Temescal (Reasoner)

2280 811 552 68 3/1-2/28 180 HM


1375 575 405 70 3/1-2/28 132 HM

1 Option for grazing 6 months within this season.

This alternative proposes changes to the allotment boundaries and updates the suitable rangeland

acreage calculations using available geographic information systems (GIS) data. The Piru

Allotment would no longer include areas in the eastern allotment (SBBM, T 5N, R 17W,

Sections 6, 7, and 18). The western boundary would be adjusted to remove part of the Piru

Creek and Canton Canyon Creek riparian corridor, as well as extend sections of the western

boundary to Canton Canyon ridgelines. The eastern boundary of the Piru Allotment would be

adjusted to reflect the existing natural barriers. For the Piru Allotment, the net acreage change

would reduce by 100 acres. For the Pothole Allotment, all private lands are removed from the

eastern and southern portion of the allotment. Other changes would include a management unit

boundary between the Lisk and Pothole Units, and moving the allotment boundary to nearby

ridgelines that would serve as natural barriers to livestock movement. All of these changes

would result in a net reduction of 598 acres in the Pothole Allotment. The Temescal Allotment

would remain nearly the same with the acreage reduced by 26 acres. The allotment boundary

line would be moved to nearby ridgelines and private land boundaries. Adjustments would be

made to the management unit boundary between Reasoner and Rodeo Flat Units. (Figure 3.6-1)

Details regarding suitable acres, number of livestock, and the season of use are described in

Table 2.1-7. The numbers of animals allowed may change based on adaptive management

options and strategies (Table 2.1-6 and Proposed Action, Resource Protection Measures and

Strategies). Suitable acres are those areas of primary and secondary rangeland forage that is

available for livestock to graze. Head months refers to the number of head (cow/calf, bull,

yearling, or combination) times the months in season of use. The numbers of livestock and

season of use may vary annually depending upon forage and water availability. However, the

proposed action sets the maximum annual authorized use in head months.


29 | P a g e

Range Improvements

Livestock improvements are necessary to manage cattle within the allotments. They include

cattleguards, corrals, fences, free fences, gates, springs, water developments, roads, and trails.

Free fences are shorter lengths of drift fences that direct or contain livestock to preferred areas or

prevent livestock from using certain areas. Standard fences can include drift fences, but serve

primarily to delineate allotment, unit, or private land boundaries. Existing improvements occur

within the allotments, both on NFS lands and adjacent private lands (Appendix B), and will

continue to be used under the proposed action alternative. The removal of private land from the

Pothole Allotment boundary eliminates those range improvements (Table 2.1-8) under this

alternative. Existing fence lines are included in (Figure 1.2-1). Installation of new fences and

gates is required in all of the allotments to protect resources and manage livestock. Proposed

improvements on NFS lands are detailed in Table 2.1-9.

Table 2.1-8. Range improvements eliminated from the project area as a result of removing private land from the Pothole Allotment. (See also Figure 1-2.1)

Allotment (Unit)

Improvement Location

Pothole (Lisk)

Pond SBBM, T 5N, R 18W, S16 SE1/4 SE1/4 (PRV)

Spring SBBM, T 5N, R 18W, S16 SE1/4 SE1/4 (PRV) SBBM, T 5N, R 18W, S27 NE1/4 NE1/4 (PRV)

Water Developments

SBBM, T 5N, R 18W, S16 SW1/4 SW1/4 (PRV) SBBM, T 5N, R 18W, S16 SW1/4 SW1/4 (PRV) SBBM, T 5N, R 18W, S21 NE1/4 NE1/4 (PRV) SBBM, T 5N, R 18W, S27 NE1/4 NE1/4 (PRV)

* Location descriptions are within the San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (SBBM).

Table 2.1-9. Proposed improvements for the project area. (See also Figure 2.1-2)

Allotment (Unit)

Proposed Improvement

Location* Purpose

Piru Fence

540 ft - SBBM, T 5N, R 18W, S14 NE1/4 (#1-Canton Canyon) 400 ft. - SBBM, T 5N, R 18W, S12 NE1/4 (#2-upper Canton Canyon) 570 ft. - SBBM, T 5N, R 18W, S23 NW1/4 (#3-Devil Ridge Road) 450 ft. - SBBM, T 5N, R 18W, S23 NE1/4 (#4-Devil Ridge at private land)

To eliminate conflicts with endangered species (location #1). Manage livestock within the allotment (locations #2, #3, and #4).

Pothole (Lisk)

Fence 6 miles - SBBM, T 5N, R 18W, S15, S16, S21 & S22 (Eastern NFS/Private land boundary)

To eliminate conflicts with endangered species and manage livestock within the allotment.


30 | P a g e

Allotment (Unit)

Proposed Improvement

Location* Purpose

Gate

SBBM, T 5N, R 18W, S15 SW1/4 (NFS/Private land boundary at Pothole Trail (PT) - mile 0.15 of PT) SBBM, T 5N, R 18W, S15 SW1/4 (NFS/Private land boundary at Pothole Trail - mile 0.5 of PT) SBBM, T 5N, R 18W, S15 SW1/4 (NFS/Private land boundary at Pothole Trail - mile 0.8 of PT)

Control livestock while allowing recreation user passage along Pothole Trail.

Pothole (Pothole)

Fence 2350 ft. - SBBM, T 5N, R 18W, S17 (Ridgeline trail between management units)

Manage livestock between Pothole and Lisk Units

Temescal (Reasoner

) Fence

Up to 3000 ft. - SBBM, T 5N, R 18W, S20 and S29 Up to 1 mile - SBBM, T 5N, R 18W, S28 and S33 (See Figure 3.2-1)

Manage and restrict livestock from southwestern willow flycatcher habitat areas (3 ac. area in middle Reasoner Creek on NFS lands and a 7 ac. area in lower Reasoner Creek on private land).

* Location descriptions are within the San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (SBBM).

Roads

All of the NFSR roads in the current management alternative would continue to be utilized.

Additionally, four and half miles of Piru Canyon Road (NFSR 4N13) would be accessed for the

Piru and Pothole Allotments (Table 2.1-10). Approximately ten miles of previously authorized

non-system roads under past grazing permits would be permitted within the Piru and Pothole

Allotments. The authorized non-system roads have been used historically for the management

and maintenance of the grazing allotments and will continue to be used under the proposed

action. One section of road in the Temescal Allotment will be eliminated. The upper segment of

the Reasoner Canyon Road will be converted from a road to a motorized trail (Table 2.1-12). No

new roads are proposed.

Table 2.1-10. National Forest System Roads utilized under the proposed action alternative. ‘None’ describes a road outside allotment boundaries.

Allotment (Unit)

Road Name Road Number

Road Length (Miles)



None Piru Canyon Road NFS Road 4N13 2 3.5 5.5

Temescal (Reasoner

and Rodeo Flat)

Dominguez Canyon Road

NFS Road 4N14 3 0.9 3.9

Temescal (Reasoner)

Lime Canyon Road NFS Road 4N14A 1.3 0.1 1.4


31 | P a g e

Table 2.1-11 lists the authorized non-system roads, and describes the road condition and

maintenance needs. Maintenance of authorized non-system roads is completed by the permittee

with oversight provided by Forest Service. Maintenance is completed to retain or restore access

for high clearance vehicles. Ongoing maintenance would include use of heavy equipment (e.g.,

grader, dozer, or backhoe) to repair the road surface, drainage features, and road corridor. Where

a road intersects a stream channel, periodic maintenance would be required, particularly after

winter flood events. The maintenance needs recorded in Table 2.1-11 describe those specific

actions which are needed to restore the roads to its previous condition and to provide continued

use and access. In inventoried roadless areas maintenance will be limited to those actions needed

to retain and restore access, and will not constitute construction or reconstruction in accordance

with Forest Service regulations.


32 | P a g e

Table 2.1-11. The authorized non-system roads under the proposed action alternative. (See also Figure 2.1-2)

Allotment (Unit)

Name Access/

Condition Maintenance Needs

Road Length (Miles)



Piru

Canton Canyon Road

Good/ Good

None currently needed beyond ongoing routine maintenance to repair road surface, drainage features, and roadway.

0.5 1.4 0.3 2.2

Devil Ridge Road

Poor/ Poor

Heavy equipment maintenance to the road surface, drainage, and roadway to restore route. Vegetation removal within and adjacent to roadway for 5 miles and heavy equipment maintenance at ephemeral stream road crossings.

4.1 1.5 5.6

Pothole (Lisk and Pothole)

Reichenbach Road

Fair/ Fair

Maintenance at six ephemeral drainage crossings.

2.4 2.4

Temescal (Reasoner)

Reasoner Canyon

Road

Fair/ Poor

Down tree removal in road corridor. Creek crossing maintenance. Heavy equipment maintenance to re-establish drainage features.

0.4 0.7 1.1

Lime Canyon Road West

Poor/ Poor

Vegetation encroachment and road surface maintenance. Repair and maintenance of Lime Canyon Road (4N14A) is required to reach this spur.

0.4 0.4

Lime Canyon Road East

Poor/ Poor

Vegetation encroachment and road surface maintenance. Repair and maintenance of Lime Canyon Road (4N14A) is required to reach this spur.

0.4 0.4

Temescal (Rodeo

Flat)

Rodeo Flat Unit Roads

Good/ Good

None currently needed beyond ongoing routine maintenance to repair road surface, drainage features, and roadway.

0.3 0.1 2.3 2.7

* Access: Good (accessible); Fair (access partially restricted); Poor (access completely restricted). Condition: Good (limited to no annual maintenance required); Fair (brushing, tread, and/or drainage repairs required in many locations); Poor (all or most of road needs brushing, surface, and/or drainage maintenance).


33 | P a g e

Some of the roads that were used under previous grazing authorizations will no longer be needed

as roads for continued grazing allotment management (Table 2.1-12). A 0.7 mile segment of the

Reasoner Canyon Road will be converted to a motorized trail. In the Temescal Allotment a total

of 0.1 miles of authorized non-system roads on NFS lands would be eliminated from future use

and maintenance activities under new term grazing permits. The eliminated road exists in a

hydrological maintenance free condition. Resource impacts are not present, therefore no

treatments or maintenance are necessary. Private land roads are included only to show

connectivity of livestock management between private and NFS lands within the allotments

(Figure 2-1.2).

Table 2.1-12. Eliminated and converted authorized non-system roads on National Forest System lands.

Allotment (Unit)

Description Length (Miles)

IRA Wilderness Other Total

Temescal (Reasoner)

Upper section of Reasoner Canyon Road*

0.7

0.7


Unnamed road 0.1

0.1

* This road will be converted to a motorized trail.

Trails

Under this alternative, the majority of previously authorized non-system trails across the project

area would be eliminated from future livestock access and allotment management (Table 2.1-13).

The eliminated trails exist in a hydrological maintenance free condition and require no

rehabilitation to mitigate resource impacts. Many of the trails have already reverted to natural

conditions. An authorized non-system trail in the Lisk Unit of the Pothole Allotment that was

previously authorized under a past term grazing permit would be maintained. In Reasoner

Canyon on the Temescal Allotment, a 0.7 mile section of authorized non-system road would be

converted to an authorized non-system motorized trail. Within the Pothole Allotment, the

Pothole Trail (NFST 18W04) would be utilized for range management. However, nearly one-

half mile of the Pothole Trail, and use of four miles of the Agua Blanca Trail (NFST 19W10)

outside the project area and previously authorized in past grazing permits, would no longer be

authorized for livestock management (Table 2.1-14). Private land trails are included only to

show connectivity of livestock management between private and NFS lands within the

allotments.


34 | P a g e

Table 2.1-13. National Forest System and authorized non-system trails (miles) utilized and eliminated under the proposed action alternative. All trails are non-motorized except for the Reasoner Canyon Trail. All trails were previously permitted for livestock access and allotment management under the 2002 term grazing permits.

Allotment (Unit)

Description Trail Type

Authorized NFS Trails Eliminated NFS Trails Total NFS

Trails Private Trails

Grand Total Trails IRA Wilderness Other IRA Wilderness Other

Piru

Devil Canyon Ridge Trail Authorized Non-

System 1.1 0.8 1.9 1.9

Canton Canyon Trail Authorized Non-

System 1.1 3.0 4.1 4.1

Pothole (Lisk)

Pothole Trail NFS Trail 18W04 1.9 2.1 4.0 0.5 4.5

Reichenbach Trail Authorized Non-

System 0.8 0.8* 0.8 0.8

From east Reichenbach Rd. Authorized Non-

System 0.8 0.8 0.2 1.0

Temescal (Reasoner)

Reasoner Canyon Trail Authorized Non-

System Motorized

0.7 0.7 0.7

Multiple unnamed trails Authorized Non-

System 2.6 3.4 6.0 0.8 6.8


Multiple unnamed trails Authorized Non-

System 2.1 2.6 3.0 7.7 1.2 8.9

TOTAL MILES 3.4 2.1 7.7 2.6 10.2 26.0 2.7 28.7

* This 0.8 mile section of trail is on a ridge between the IRA and Wilderness, therefore this is not an additional length of trail.


35 | P a g e

Table 2.1-14. National Forest System Trails no longer authorized under the proposed action alternative. These trails were previously permitted under past grazing permits.

Allotment (Unit)

Description Trail Type

NFS Trails Total NFS

Trails Private Trails

Grand Total Trails IRA Wilderness Other

Pothole (Pothole)

Agua Blanca Trail NFS Trail 19W10

1.0 2.8 0.2 4.0 1.2 5.2

Pothole Trail NFS Trail 18W04

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8

Existing trails described under this alternative have been used under previous grazing permits.

These trails include the Pothole Trail (NFST 18W04), Reasoner Canyon Trail (authorized non-

system motorized), and Reichenbach Trail (authorized non-system). NFSTs are maintained by

the Forest Service in accordance with trail management objectives and Forest Service standards

and guidelines. The authorized non-system trails receive maintenance to retain the route for

continued livestock management use. When appropriate, hand and motorized power tools would

be used to complete maintenance to the trail tread, drainage features, and prevent vegetation

encroachment within the trail corridor.

The Reasoner Canyon Trail would provide access for ATVs and would be maintained up to 50

inches in width. Heavy equipment appropriate for maintaining the motorized trail may be used

when needed to repair and retain the trail for ATV access along the trail tread and corridor. This

trail would be the only motorized trail within the project area.

Resource Protection Measures and Strategies

In the planning and implementation of management activities, the Forest Service uses many

resource protection measures and strategies to reduce or prevent negative impacts to natural

resources and the environment, and meet or move towards desired conditions. Additional site

specific resource protection measures and strategies were developed by the interdisciplinary

team to respond to identified issues and management needs. The proposed action would

implement the following resource protection measures and strategies for the Piru, Pothole, and

Temescal Allotments and will be incorporated into the new term grazing permits. The applicable

Forest Plan standards, guidelines, and strategies are included in Appendix A.

a. Utilize Best Management Practices (USDA 2000) described in Appendix C. b. Apply the Five-Step Project Screening Process for Riparian Conservation Areas (S47)

described in Forest Plan Appendix E (USDA-FS 2005c, pg. 11). Application of this process

to this project is shown in Appendix D.

c. Water developments would be managed to sustain both the needs of spring site surroundings as well as off-site water. Management practices may include: 1) controlling availability of

developed water to livestock, 2) hauling water to temporary tanks to influence livestock

distribution and obtain use in areas that normally receive light to no use (location of tanks

may be moved around the allotment), 3) constructing new water developments to mitigate

resource concerns (option 3 would require a supplemental NEPA document and decision).


36 | P a g e

Fencing the spring source and habitat may also be necessary depending on the distance to the

off-site water.

d. Reconstruct and/or replace existing range improvements in the same footprint when their useful life expectancy is reached or to respond to natural events (e.g., fire or floods).

e. Prior to receiving an authorization for grazing the permittee must construct, re-construct or maintain fencing in the Piru and Pothole Allotments to restrict cattle from entering United

Water Conservation District lands, Lake Piru Recreation Area, Piru Reservoir, and Piru

Creek.

f. A fence installation strategy will be utilized to ensure fencing management needs are protecting resources and meeting or moving towards desired conditions:

Utilize and maintain existing fencing.

Other range management options may be utilized prior to installation of proposed fencing.

Construct proposed fence sections at the most likely points of access to restrict livestock movements.

Install additional fence (temporary electric free fence, permanent free fence, or permanent continuous fence) as needed until unplanned livestock access is avoided.

The permittee is responsible for acquiring the range materials, and for constructing and

maintaining fences and other range improvements. When funding is available, the Forest

Service would provide range improvement materials.

g. Ground disturbing activities such as installation of water developments, pipelines, fences or enclosures may require additional environmental analysis if not covered in this document.

Cultural resource and biological specie surveys may be required prior to maintenance and

implementation of range improvements.

h. Application of pesticides (or other chemicals) is not authorized under this proposal. i. The permittee will be requ

Date post:	18-Feb-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times