WSP07926 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

"l"~, ~ ~ 1 'J J..... J J lo.. fIShery hahitat within the majority of streams within the planning area, IMPACTS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management. Livestock forage in the Planning Area would be expected to improve in quantity and quality over the life of the plan by implementing AMPs or CRMAPs, maintaining existing treatments and projects in some units, and indirectly, by improved livestock distribution patterns by implementing 6", 4" and 2-1J2' minimum stubhle heights in riparian areas, 40-60% forage utilization rates on all uplands and range readiness. More intensive livestock management and use supervision would be necessary. Impacts from Solis and Water Resource Management. Vegetation treatments designed to increase plant basal cover, and implementing soil ecosion and watershed mitigation measures would increase forage quality and help improve livestock distribution over the life of the plan. Allocation of all additional available forage to meet watershed objectives first, and then wildlife oeeds, would potentially result in livestock grazing treatments or projects being deferred or not developed Impacts from Riparian Zones Management. Not authorizing livestock grazing on about three miles, or 76 acres, of the North Willow Creek riparian wne to improve big game forage and fishery habitat in unit B- 5 would reduce livestock utilization by about 38 AUMs. Maintaining a 6" stubble height on about 1,660 acres in unit B.lO would result in a reduction of 166 AUMs and would require more intensive livestock management. Managing livestock forage utilization to maintain a 4" stubble height on about 131 miles or about 2,364 suitable acres of important fishery habitat could result in a reduction of 236 AUMs and more intensive livestock management. ALTERNATIVE B IMPACTS Requiring livestock treatments and management to meet riparian management objectives would probably increase costs and time for planning and implementation of treatments, or possibly operators' costs, for livestock management on these lands. Implementing riparian zone management actions and other mitigation would, over the life of the plan, improve and increase available forage. Impacts from Wildlife Habitat Management. Maintaining existing treatments and developing new wildlife treatments on uplands and within riparian areas, allocating new available forage to meet watershed objective first, potentially reducing big game numbers in GMUs 54, 55, 551, and a part of GMU 64, and implementing other wildlife mitigation measures would result in improved livestock distribution and forage quality over the life of the plan. Prohibiting domestic sheep grazing on the highway allotment No. 6056, to reduce forage competition with deer, and within 19,387 suitable acres on bighorn sheep habitat within tbe proposed Alpine ACEC to prevent disease transfer to bighorn sheep would result in the cancellation of grazing permits on allotments 6056, 6502, 6503, 6504, 6506, 6507, and 6509. This would reduce livestock allocations by 107 and 3,502 AUMs respectively, due to the unsuitability of using these areas for other domestic livestock grazing. E1iminating all domestic livestock grazing on 837 suitable acres in allotment 6200 in unit B-5 and on lands managed by the NPS, in order to improve crucial big game winter range would reduce livestock allocations by 114 A UMs. N~t authorizing domestic sheep grazing on 5,717 swtable acres in allotments 6100 and 6101 in unit B- 14, where permitted, in order to reduce trampling within sage grouse nesting habitat and reduce disturbance to nesting grouse, would result in a reduction of 1,025 AUMs. Not authorizing domestic sheep grazing in order to pr~vent disease transfer to bighorn sheep on 6,277 swtable acres in allotment 6112 in unit B-1 and in unit B-13 would result in a change of class of livestock to 4-21