ARTIN BASIN RANGELAND

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Intermountain Region Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Santa Rosa Ranger District RECORD OF DECISION FOR THE MARTIN BASIN RANGELAND MANAGEMENT PROJECT October 2009

2 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) (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C , or call (800) (voice) or (202) (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Record of Decision

3 RECORD OF DECISION MARTIN BASIN RANGELAND PROJECT U.S. FOREST SERVICE SANTA ROSA RANGER DISTRICT HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE NATIONAL FOREST HUMBOLDT COUNTY, NEVADA I. SUMMARY OF DECISION This Record of Decision (ROD) for the Martin Basin Rangeland Project (project) documents my decision to reauthorize grazing permits on all allotments analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). As the Responsible Official for the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, I have decided to implement FEIS Alternative 2 with one modification. In summary, my decision: Reauthorizes grazing on eight allotments in the project area (Bradshaw, Buffalo, Buttermilk, Granite Peak, Indian, Martin Basin, Rebel Creek and West Flat Creek Allotments). Reauthorizes grazing on the Bradshaw Allotment in conjunction with the Martin Basin Allotment, with no addition to the animal unit months (AUMs) currently allowed for the Martin Basin allotment (as clarified in the FEIS). Authorizes grazing on lands that were recently purchased by the Forest Service from private landowners (the Nevada First and Rebel Creek properties) and are within or bordering the allotments listed above. Provides a system of monitoring to determine the ecological condition of the allotments. Provides proper use criteria (end-of-season utilization) and within season triggers to determine when livestock must be removed (as clarified in the FEIS). Defines a basis for adapting proper use criteria over time in response to changes in the ecological conditions of the allotments. Identifies design features to provide additional protection for sensitive resources. Establishes a 10 percent maximum streambank disturbance criterion for all streams inhabited by Lahontan cutthroat trout (a modification of Alternative 2, as explained in this ROD). Updates Allotment Management Plans to included key components of this decision. Appendix A (Table 1) of this Record of Decision (ROD) provides the initial proper use criteria for the various vegetative habitat groups in the allotments. The derivation of these criteria is described in greater detail below in this ROD, and in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Page 1 of 24

4 This ROD represents the second decision made on the Martin Basin Rangeland Project. An initial decision was signed in June, 2006, and subsequently appealed. Following appeal review the Regional Forester remanded the decision to the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest for additional analysis. II. PROJECT AREA The Martin Basin Rangeland Project area is located on the Santa Rosa Ranger District of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. The project area comprises about 190,000 acres of the District, which is located about 40 miles north of Winnemucca, Nevada, and stretches northward to the Idaho border. III. PROPOSED ACTION AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION As presented in both the DEIS and the FEIS, the Forest Service proposes to reauthorize grazing on eight allotments within the Martin Basin Rangeland Project area, and to modify the terms and conditions of the permits under which the grazing is authorized. Our proposal is consistent with Congressional intent for the use of National Forest System (NFS) lands, as outlined in the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act. Our process for implementing this proposal is also consistent with direction in the National Forest Management Act for developing program guidance, and complies with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for displaying the environmental impacts of proposed Federal actions. As indicated in the previous paragraph, the Forest Service is proposing two actions: 1) allowing livestock to be turned out on NFS land to consume forage as part of local ranchers overall livestock operations; and 2) modifying the terms and conditions of the grazing permits to reflect a better understanding of the conditions in the project area, and the latest science on grazing management relative to conditions in the project area. The Purpose and Need for the proposed federal actions is to contribute value to grazing permittees in a way that sustains the health of the land and protects essential ecosystem functions and values. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) descriptions of the Proposed Action and Purpose and Need provoked considerable comment and discussion, both externally and internally to the agency. These perspectives are further explored in Section VIII of this ROD (Issues Raised During Public Comment On The DEIS). IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Public participation helps the Forest Service identify concerns with possible effects of its proposals. It is also a means of disclosing the nature and consequences of actions proposed for NFS lands. The Forest developed a list of public individuals, organizations, governments, and agencies that would likely be interested in the project. These included grazing permittees, other landowners, advocacy and user-group organizations, county governments, Tribal governments, other Federal Page 2 of 24

5 agencies, Nevada State agencies, livestock industry groups, and local news media. We communicated with the public extensively, both for the original EIS and for this second analysis and EIS preparation. Highlights of this involvement are provided below. In February 2007, the Forest issued a formal public notice regarding the intent to prepare a new Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Martin Basin Rangeland Project, and requested comments regarding the authorization of livestock grazing within the project area. A legal notice was published in the Elko Daily Free Press and Federal Register. The Forest received comments very similar to those submitted during the preparation of the previous Martin Basin range analysis (2004). Issues identified included effects to water and soil quality, vegetation and wildlife habitat, and social and economic impacts to the permittees. In September 2007, a field visit to the project area was held in which both permittees and interested parties discussed issues. Follow-up meetings were held in December 2008 and January 2009, with many of the same individuals that participated in the field review. The purpose of these meetings was to discuss how the Forest would incorporate comments into the analysis. In December 2008, a DEIS was mailed to governments, agencies, organizations, and interested individuals. In January 2009, the Notice of Availability for the DEIS was published in the Federal Register and the legal notice on the 45 day comment period was published in the Elko Daily Free Press. In February 2009, at the request of the permittees, the comment period for the DEIS was extended an additional 45 days, as noticed in the Elko Daily Free Press and Federal Register. V. SIGNIFICANT ISSUES DRIVING ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT The interdisciplinary team (ID Team) reviewed comments received during public and internal scoping for this round of EIS preparation, as well as the previous EIS. They identified five significant issues specific to soil quality; water quality; vegetation composition, structure, and health; fisheries and wildlife; and socio-economic values. These issues are described in the FEIS. VI. ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN DETAIL Based on public comments, agency policy, the Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), and Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA, the ID Team developed three alternatives (including the Proposed Action) for detailed analysis. The alternatives are described in detail in the FEIS. Summaries of the alternatives follow. Alternative 1-Current Management would continue currently authorized grazing allotment management, as guided by Forest Plan standards, including the default use criteria provided by Forest Plan Amendment 2. This alternative responds most robustly to the issue of socio- Page 3 of 24

6 economic return to ranchers and the local community from grazing opportunities on NFS lands. Alternative 3-No Grazing/No Action would require an immediate cessation of grazing. It serves as the baseline for comparing environmental impacts and exploring the conditions necessary to provide a sustainable grazing program that protects critical resources and provides functioning ecosystems. Alternative 2-Proposed Action was presented in the DEIS as the preferred alternative. It would continue grazing on all allotments under a modified set of conditions and criteria that vary from the default maximum utilization standards of Forest Plan Amendment 2, but that are consistent with Amendment 2, which specifically accommodates changes from the default standards. As directed in the Amendment, the ID Team conducting this project-specific analysis examined the applicability of the default standards, considering the full spectrum of resource needs and values. Alternative 2 bases proper-use (utilization) criteria on ecological condition. The better the ecological condition of the allotment, the greater the amount of forage livestock would be permitted to use. Conversely, on allotments that are functioning-at-risk or non-functioning, livestock would be allowed less use of forage to encourage recovery of ecological function. Tables 2 and 3 (ROD Appendix A) outline the numerical relationship between proper-use criteria and ecological condition. These tables set the maximum use allowable for each vegetation habitat group by condition. They provide the basis for the use criteria presented in Table 1 (ROD Appendix A) for the eight allotments. The development of these criteria is discussed in greater detail in this ROD in the Decision and Decision Rationale sections below. Alternative 2 requires a monitoring system to assess the ecological condition of the allotments on a periodic basis. Depending on the ecological condition, proper-use criteria could change for an individual allotment in accord with the relationships outlined in Tables 2 and 3. Alternative 2 also includes several design criteria to provide additional protection for resources such as sensitive plants and wildlife (such as sage grouse). These design criteria are outlined in Chapter 2 of the FEIS and displayed in this ROD (Appendix B). VII. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL The FEIS presents several alternatives considered by the ID Team, but not analyzed in detail. One of these was an alternative provided by the permittees ( 2005 FEIS Alternative 4 ). Although the ID Team attempted to analyze this alternative in the first round EIS for the project, a critical lack of specificity in the alternative description did not allow for NEPA analysis that met regulatory standards. This alternative did identify important principles, such as the necessity of close working relations between the Forest Service and the permittees; the need for flexibility in day-to-day operations to accomplish good management; and the need to stay focused on the desired long-term goal of healthy rangelands, irrespective of short-term or local deviations. Page 4 of 24

7 An environmental advocacy group suggested development of a Restoration Alternative. However, their suggestion described few specifics. The alternative would involve a significant, but unspecified, reduction in grazing levels; intensive management of the remaining livestock through herd management and other non-structural means; and non-grazing related restoration techniques such as road closures. The lack of specificity in the group s description of their desired grazing reduction did not allow for analysis. In addition, road closures are outside the scope of this analysis; they were recently analyzed in the Santa Rosa Travel Management Project. Other restoration activities, such as stream head-cut repair or vegetation treatment, are not precluded by Alternatives 1-3, but would require additional NEPA analysis under a separate description of purpose and need. Finally, a Fuels Reduction Alternative with the objective of reducing fuels through grazing was eliminated from detailed consideration. There is little research available to support the theory that grazing would be a long-term effective fuel reduction strategy on Martin Basin landscapes where dominant fuels consist of live and dead woody materials minimally affected by cattle grazing. In addition, the proponents did not clearly explain how the objective of fuel reduction could be integrated with the need to maintain ecosystem function in ways that would result in different grazing management than that envisioned under either Alternative 1 or 2. A more detailed discussion of these alternatives and the rational for eliminating a detailed analysis of each is found in Chapter 2 of the FEIS-Other Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Detailed Analysis. VIII. ISSUES RAISED DURING PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DEIS. The DEIS for the Martin Basin Project was issued in January 2, The required 45-day comment period was extended for an additional 45 days. Numerous and extensive comments were received on the DEIS. In the process of preparing the FEIS, all comments were reviewed and responses provided in a separate document that is included with the FEIS for public review. Because of the complexity and importance of issues raised in several of the comments, I am reviewing our responses to selected issues. Economic Considerations One commenter strenuously objected to the notion that a grazing program should be implemented simply to benefit ranchers economically. This commenter also stated that, if we were in essence offering economic justifications for this grazing project, we needed to weigh the economic costs of the environmental destruction caused by grazing. Other commenters objected, stating that we failed to properly present or adequately acknowledge the positive economic ramifications of this grazing project to the larger community. I believe the description of the Proposed Action and Purpose and Need for the Action in the EIS clearly explains the dual outcomes, ecologic and socio-economic, that we are addressing. Although we could focus our Purpose and Need discussion on the need to redesign the criteria and permit terms for a reauthorized grazing program, I also owe the public some explanation of the purpose and need for the underlying activity: livestock grazing on National Forest System Page 5 of 24

8 land. The Purpose and Need statement in the FEIS introduces this discussion which I review below. This discussion appropriately acknowledges the role of Congress. As reviewed in the FEIS, Congress has defined grazing as an allowable use in the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and the National Forest Management Act. Congress has provided additional direction in annual agency budget instructions, legislation for wilderness designations, and other legislation. This direction at times borders on an explicit expectation that livestock grazing occur on Federally managed land. Certainly such direction falls within the ultimate constitutional authority given Congress to make all needful rules and regulations regarding Federal property. Nonetheless Congress has given fair discretion to the Forest Service to implement its general direction and to balance the needs of the many resources we manage. In exercising this discretion I have listened closely to opinions and arguments from many parties on this contentious issue. Numerous possible benefits of livestock grazing have been advanced from various sources. These include reducing rangeland fuel and possible wildfire severity, controlling noxious and invasive plants, improving wildlife habitat, and providing a degree of needed disturbance in disturbance-adapted ecosystems. At times these benefits are argued as needs for grazing. Although some of these arguments appear compelling (as, for example, work by Davies et al. 2009, as cited in the FEIS), applicability to the Martin Basin area has yet to be demonstrated and will require further study. Accomplishing objectives such as fuel reduction or habitat improvement through grazing are also problematic either because the resource conditions in the project area are not conducive to this application, the degree of management needed to achieve the desired effects is not feasible or practical, or the desired effects can be accomplished by a variety of other means that would need comparative analysis (see, for example, Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail). I have also heard the perspective that ecosystems have paid a high price for livestock grazing and that the program should be cancelled at least until the ecosystem accounts are settled. Given the limitations outlined above and the possible adverse effects of poorly managed grazing operations, I find it difficult to argue the necessity of grazing on purely ecosystem grounds. I am then left to consider the role of economics. The action of turning cows out on the National Forest appears to me to be driven at least in part by a desire for economic return. This seems a fairly self-evident statement of fact that is supported by the continued request of ranchers for these permits. Support for this assertion does not require a full review of ranch ledgers as requested by one commenter. Likewise acknowledging an economic interest does not negate value to the permittee that goes beyond economic and touches the cultural identity of the rancher, the ranching family, and the larger community As I have examined these issues, it has become apparent to me that acknowledging an economic component in programs such as livestock management or timber harvest is troublesome for many. Concern arises on several counts. Page 6 of 24

9 The first is a concern that acknowledging economic interests will overwhelm efforts in environmental protection, contaminate analysis, and distort our better instincts. This perspective reflects an awareness that we have passed beyond an era where many envisioned National Forests as economically optimized tree farms, and that we must zealously resist return. Despite the oft-stated perspective that sustaining both the economy and the environment is possible, I would be naïve to deny the inherent tension between economic interest and environmental protection. We, as a society, have yet to fully reconcile these divergent interests. Nonetheless, I refuse to shirk our duty to contribute to the resolution of this challenge. We are doing more that permitting ranchers to turn out livestock. We are managing grazing conditions to sustain the health of the land. If we in this agency, with our vast resources of talent, our analytic prowess, and our mission and ideals, cannot further this integration by example, who will? A second, more practical issue for some is that acknowledging a role for economics makes us vulnerable to a demand for a complete economic analysis of environmental costs and a complete rendering of economic return to the permittees and others. Together these analyses would form the basis of a cost-benefit analysis. Some would contend that economic gains must outweigh environmental costs for proposals to be deemed acceptable. Law and regulation do not require such analysis nor do they set cost-benefit standards for the acceptability of proposals. While I accept the challenge of designing grazing systems that provide a meaningful degree of environmental protection, I do not claim that the short-term economic returns to producers outweigh the long-term costs. Such analyses may well be beyond the state of the art or, at a minimum, would produce a variety of outcomes depending on the assumptions used. The FEIS does document extensively the environmental consequences of grazing in the project area. I considered this information carefully and in concert with my consideration of social and economic impacts. A related concern for some opponents of grazing is that we spend so much effort for the direct benefit of so few. In some sense they ask what is in it for the rest of us. I have alluded to the larger value of demonstrating environmentally protective options for commodity production. I am also reminded of a commentary in defense of wilderness areas from the conservative columnist, George Will a social critic not usually associated with environmental activism. He notes that the fact that the annual visitorship to the Maroon Bells Wilderness (one of our most popular) is less than the attendance at a single New York Yankees ball game does not negate the social value of wilderness areas. As many have argued, even a wilderness area unvisited has value for many who take comfort just knowing it is there. Likewise knowing that a ranching way of life is sustained, resonates for many in the local community and beyond. That we could provide such assurance with an environmentally protective example of resource management would further reinforce its value. That we must still progress to that goal I do not deny. Page 7 of 24

10 In summary, my claims for purposes served and needs met by this project are limited on physical, social, and economic scales. They do not, for example, include claims of significant contributions to community economic stability. Although some commenters note that agricultural activity is a substantial part of the Humboldt County economy, the profile of this project is small in comparison. Nonetheless, we intend this project as an example of what is possible as we search for ways to integrate economic pursuits and environmental protection. Forest Plan Considerations Several individuals commented that we had inappropriately modified various Forest Plan standards, particularly as contained in Forest Plan Amendment 2, without proper subsequent amendment. As reviewed in the Alternatives section above, Forest Plan Amendment 2 assigns significant responsibility and discretion to project ID Teams to design proper-use criteria that account for the full spectrum of resource needs and values, and recognizes that proper-use criteria may vary from the default maximum utilization standards of Amendment 2. The team has appropriately exercised that responsibility. I also believe that this decision will help us attain the Forest Plan goal that directs us to Manage all allotments to maintain suitable range presently in satisfactory ecological condition, and improve suitable range that is in less than satisfactory condition. Section IX of this ROD ( Decision ) also clarifies how we intend to implement this decision consistent with the approach to proper-use criteria in Forest Plan Amendment 2. Amendment 2 proper-use criteria are enforceable at any time of the year, the equivalent of within season triggers and not merely end-of-season criteria. I also note that we intend additional analyses of other grazing allotments across this widely dispersed National Forest. These analyses will also be guided by the Forest Plan goals and the direction contained in Amendment 2. Because of physical differences in these areas (e.g. elevation and aspect), differences in vegetation growing patterns and seasonal precipitation (e.g. summer monsoonal events), and other site-specific considerations, the ID teams for these projects may identify different criteria for within season triggers and proper use criteria. This direction must be consistent with the Forest Plan, including its amendments, or the Forest Plan will need to be amended. Data Quality and Science Review Several commenters objected to the quality of our site condition data, either as a basis for changing current grazing management direction, or displaying the actual impacts of past, current, and future grazing. I acknowledge that our project condition data does not thoroughly describe current or past condition or condition trends. However, I believe our data is sufficient to draw reasonable inferences on the impacts of past activities and the current condition of the allotments in the project area. This information, coupled with a review of scientific findings on grazing under Page 8 of 24

11 conditions similar to those on the Santa Rosa Ranger District, and a review of the science on ecosystem management, indicates a need to change some of our grazing management criteria. I review, in greater detail, in the Decision Rationale (ROD Section X) how this information influenced my decision. Several commenters critiqued the adequacy of our discussion of cheatgrass, the influences on its spread, and future management implications. In response, we have expanded our FEIS discussion of this significant threat to Great Basin ecosystems. We have likewise provided additional project area site data and discussion of soils and microbiotic crusts in the FEIS. One commenter strenuously objected to our coverage of the issue of climate change and potential impacts on a host of resources in the Great Basin. As we discuss in the EIS, conclusions on the specific impacts of climate change on the project area remain highly speculative. However, as also discussed in the EIS, the monitoring system envisioned in Alternative 2 will track changes to ecosystems from a variety of causes, including climate change. Alternative 2 provides mechanisms to adjust grazing management in response to undesirable ecosystem changes, whether caused by grazing itself or other influences such as climate change or a combination of factors. This monitoring system will also provide the information necessary to adjust future decisions as necessary to our grazing management program. Several commenters critique the adequacy of our discussion of the scientific literature on the issue of grazing impacts and the sustainability of grazing programs, particularly in the Great Basin. In response, we have expanded the FEIS discussion of these topics, particularly as it relates to our selection of proper-use criteria for forage consumption by livestock. This discussion in the FEIS reflects the wide diversity of thought and scientific findings on the impacts of grazing in the Intermountain West. Capability of Rangelands One commenter was particularly critical of our analysis and use of rangeland capability determinations. The commenter objected to the notion that the Forest Service would allow livestock grazing on allotments that contained a large percentage of lands rated as not capable. This commenter also noted that if given the opportunity, livestock will forage both on capable and non- capable lands, and that this use of non-capable lands would be particularly objectionable. In responding to this comment we note the purpose and use of capability analyses. These analyses historically were developed to determine the stocking capacity of allotments, i.e., how many head of livestock could be placed on an allotment and for how long. This capacity was related to the quality and availability of forage for livestock. Portions of the allotment not producing sufficient forage because of soil condition or other vegetative competition were rated as not capable. In addition, excessively steep slopes or portions of an allotment too far from water were rated as not capable, regardless of forage production. All of these non-capable lands were then subtracted from the land base in determining the initial livestock carrying capacity. Livestock grazing that might occur on non-capable lands did not factor into the capacity determination. Page 9 of 24

12 We agree with the commenter that the determination that a portion of an allotment is noncapable does not mean that livestock will not choose to use the area. It also does not necessarily imply that livestock use of these lands is unacceptable from an environmental perspective. We also note that the Proposed Action approach to managing livestock on the Martin Basin Project area is focused less on managing livestock numbers and duration, and more on the management of range condition, regardless of the number of cattle. Capacity analysis provides an estimate of the appropriate stocking rate; but proper use criteria would ultimately determine acceptable use. When forage capacity has been hit, the cows need to go home. As part of this project-level analysis we also reviewed the capability determinations for management indicator species (MIS) made in connection with development of the Forest Plan. We confirmed that the results of these Forest Plan calculations were appropriate and are still applicable. Monitoring Program Monitoring of ecological condition of the allotments is a critical step in our management. Determinations and modifications of proper-use criteria are critically dependent on regular and proper assessment of allotment condition. Several commenters noted that our past record of collecting condition data does not bode well for promises for the future. I will admit that a degree of skepticism over our stated commitment is warranted. I can understand that trust me statements would register with the credibility of the Alaska bumper sticker that reads Oh Lord, give us just one more oil boom, and we promise we won t waste it. I believe, however, that our record shows an improved data collection process over the past several years. This second Martin Basin FEIS analysis and its display of existing condition data is an improvement over the previous EIS analysis. The Jarbidge Rangeland Management Project represents a further expansion of our data collection process. As we prepare for additional allotment analyses, we have ramped up our data collection process in these areas. I recognize that improved data collection will require a financial commitment. Beginning with fiscal year 2010, we are funding a stand-alone monitoring team that will be charged with ongoing ecological monitoring of our range allotments. This team will supplement the efforts of district range conservationists whose administration of the grazing permits will include monitoring of attainment of the proper use criteria. Future ecological condition assessments (long-term monitoring) would focus on the matrix attributes (FEIS Appendix B) that respond most rapidly to adjustments in livestock management. Accordingly, several attributes would be emphasized when making project-level management decisions. In the stream group matrix, attributes directly reflecting the degree of livestock impact (such as bank trampling and streambank stability) would be emphasized in determining status. Other attributes (e.g. 1 through 5) would not be used when determining the appropriate proper use criteria either because they are not affected by cattle grazing (e.g. ph); they are not reliably measured within reasonable time frames because of high diurnal or seasonal variability (e.g. water temperature, turbidity, dissolved oxygen); they can be unduly affected by off-site Page 10 of 24

13 influences unrelated to grazing (e.g. temperature); or they require specialized equipment and procedures that render the measure impractical for routine analysis (e.g. fecal coliform). Many of the matrices include an attribute for landscape disturbance associated with non-grazing facilities (camp grounds, roads, etc). These developments may affect overall watershed condition, but are unrelated to grazing. Therefore this attribute would not be used when determining appropriate proper use criteria. Data on non-grazing related attributes would still be collected when monitoring is conducted so that the general condition of the area can be determined. However, these attributes would not be used to mandate adjustments in the proper use criteria for this project. The project ID Team has reviewed the current ecological assessment of the allotments and concluded that these determinations were not influenced by attributes discussed above, but instead were based upon attributes that are directly affected by livestock grazing. Cumulative Effects The EIS cumulative effects analysis area for the project includes all public and private lands within the boundaries of the Santa Rosa Ranger District. The analysis considered activities and management actions on both public and private lands. Adequate presentation of the cumulative effects of a proposed action and all the other past, ongoing, and possible activities in the analysis area is a perennial issue in NEPA compliance. In theory, effects can be additive (2+2=4), synergistic (2+2=5), or antagonistic (2+2=3). The practical difficulty is that effects from different activities are rarely on the same scale, intensity, or duration, and thus their effects rarely accumulate in neat, quantitative fashions. Although the analogy of adding apples and oranges might be cited, in reality the difficulty is more one of adding apples and egg beaters. For example: The cows that graze in Martin Basin are all methane-emitters. Methane is a greenhouse gas and thus this project contributes to the total global burden of these gasses, though our analysis shows this project's contribution is vanishingly small in comparison. NFS lands in the Santa Rosas are surrounded by BLM and some private lands which are also used for grazing. Several of our permittees also have grazing permits on neighboring BLM public lands. Some streams from our allotments flow onto private and BLM lands, and pollutants carried from our operations combine with that of other grazing operations. One of the worst situations is in the Canyon Creek watershed located west of Windy Gap. I have observed riparian areas on adjacent private land that are highly impacted by livestock grazing. National Forest segments of Canyon Creek upstream of the private land are rated as functioning-at-risk, and these stream reaches are also likely contributing sediment and other pollutants. Similar, though less substantial effects are noted elsewhere in the project area. In general, cumulative effects of the project are small, and water quality monitoring of our streams indicates that we are generally at levels compatible with State standards. In some cases, activities originating on adjacent lands are contributing to the effects of grazing on NFS lands. For example, trespass horses from neighboring owners are significantly impacting the forage resource on at least one Forest Service allotment. Page 11 of 24

14 Attempts to resolve this issue are ongoing. If the situation is not resolved, grazing by permitted livestock may be reduced to compensate for this illegal use, which in many cases is occurring year-round. In the last 10 years, large wildfires originating on adjacent lands have significantly affected vegetative condition on some allotments. Brush species have been reduced or eliminated for a period of time. Invasive species such as cheatgrass or various noxious weeds have expanded. As discussed in the FEIS, concentrated use by livestock may have accelerated the introduction of these infestations. The scientific conclusions on the role of grazing in continuing the spread of invasive species are varied. It is clear, however, that poorly managed grazing operations can weaken the resistance of desirable species and exacerbate the impacts of wildfires to native plant communities. Current grazing improvements or other implementation actions include fences, water developments, and salt and mineral placements. These are often intended to reduce impacts of grazing (in sensitive riparian areas, etc). However, all three can concentrate cattle, resulting in unavoidable soil compaction and vegetation trampling. Fences can also interfere with wildlife movements and provide perches for avian predators which are significantly impacting sage grouse and other bird species in some areas. At least one commenter complained that our cumulative effects analysis was too qualitative and was not sufficiently rigorous. I acknowledge that the FEIS is qualitative in many instances; nonetheless, our considerations are serious. My selection of a course of action weighed our options to reduce these cumulative effects. I believe that careful implementation of the Selected Action will help lessen many of these impacts by restoring and maintaining functioning ecosystems that are resilient to some level of disturbance. IX. DECISION As the Responsible Official for the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, I have decided to implement Alternative 2, with one modification. My single modification ensures that my decision is consistent with the terms and conditions contained in the Biological Opinion received from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation). Clarifications in the FEIS also ensure that Alternative 2 is implemented consistent with the framework of Forest Plan Amendment 2. The Selected Action does the following: Reauthorizes grazing on eight allotments in the project area (Bradshaw, Buffalo, Buttermilk, Granite Peak, Indian, Martin Basin, Rebel Creek, and West Flat Creek Allotments). These allotments would be reauthorized with the initial proper-use criteria outlined in Table 1 (ROD Appendix A). Reauthorizes grazing on the Bradshaw Allotment in conjunction with the Martin Basin Allotment with no addition to the animal unit months (AUMs) currently allowed for the Martin Basin allotment (as clarified in the FEIS). Authorizes grazing on lands that were recently purchased by the Forest Service from private landowners (the Nevada First and Rebel Creek properties) and are within or Page 12 of 24

15 adjacent to the allotments listed above. The proper use criteria for the grazing of these lands would be the same as the allotments in which they are embedded or border. Provides a system of monitoring to determine the ecological condition of the allotments that uses quantifiable multiply indicators. Chapter 2 of the FEIS describes the approach for implementing this monitoring system. Provides proper use criteria (end-of-season utilization) and within season triggers to determine when livestock must be removed (as clarified in the FEIS). The general relationship between proper use criteria and ecological condition is provided in Table 2 and 3 (ROD Appendix A). Defines a basis for adapting proper-use criteria over time, in response to changes in the ecological conditions of the allotments. The allotments would be subject to periodic reevaluation. If the ecological condition of the allotment changes, the proper-use criteria would be adapted in accord with the relationships outlined in the previous element of this decision. Identifies design features to provide additional protection for sensitive resources. Selected design features are those identified in FEIS Chapter 2 (ROD Appendix B) Establishes a 10 percent maximum streambank disturbance criteria for all streams inhabited by Lahontan cutthroat trout (a modification of Alternative 2, as explained in this ROD). Updates Allotment Management Plans to include key components of this decision; As discussed extensively in the FEIS, the Selected Action provides specific use-criteria for allotments based on current ecological condition, and requires periodic monitoring to reassess condition. This two-tiered process first involves an assessment of ecological condition (functioning, functioning at risk, or non-functioning) for each vegetation habitat group (e.g. Wyoming big sagebrush, mountain big sagebrush, aspen, etc.) in an allotment. Second, based upon the assigned condition class, proper-use criteria are assigned for the vegetation habitat groups within the allotment. These criteria define the maximum forage consumption for livestock on an annual basis. Proper use criteria for herbaceous forage under the Selected Action are generally lower than criteria under Alternative 1. The FEIS contains an expanded discussion of the derivation of the criteria used in Alternative 2. As discussed in the FEIS, the scientific literature converges on a finding that moderate forage use in the range of 40 to 50 percent by weight on desirable plant species is sustainable on sites in good condition (functioning) and with similar growing conditions as the Santa Rosas. There is less information on appropriate use-criteria for sites in poorer conditions (functioning at risk or non-functioning). As reviewed in the FEIS, light grazing is considered to be forage use in the 30 to 40 percent range, depending on vegetation habitat group. Alternative 2 reduces forage use to specific values in this range for sites that are functioning-at-risk. For non-functioning areas, we have further reduced grazing levels to values in the range of 20 to 30 percent, depending on the vegetation habitat group. The level of reduction in use-criteria for areas that are functioning-at-risk or non-functioning are based on the assumption that sites with lesser ecological functionality will benefit from less grazing pressure and that the reduction must be sufficient to be reliably measured on an annual basis. Page 13 of 24

16 Of greatest concern are areas rated as non-functioning. As discussed in the scientific literature and reviewed in the FEIS, a reduction or even elimination of grazing may not be enough to restore ecological function, and other interventions may be needed. Three areas in the Martin Basin were rated as non-functioning: the riparian area in Siard Creek, and the mountain big sagebrush (Uplands) and Wyoming big sagebrush vegetation habitat groups in the Tom Basin portion of the Granite Peak allotment. Use in the Siard riparian areas will be reduced to 25 percent of herbaceous (non-woody) species and 10 percent of browse species (woody plants such as willow) until conditions change. This is a substantial reduction from current permitted use levels of 45 percent. We will continue to monitor the recovery of this allotment. If necessary, other interventions such as head-cut repair or fencing to exclude grazing will be considered. These interventions would require a separate NEPA analysis and decision. The mountain big sagebrush areas and Wyoming big sagebrush areas in the Tom Basin are both rated as non-functioning, primarily due to high levels of cheatgrass. My decision reduces use levels to 30 and 20 percent (respectively) on herbaceous vegetation. I have not entirely eliminated grazing in these areas in part because recent findings by Davies and others (2009) and other researchers (as cited and discussed in the FEIS) seem to indicate that light to moderate grazing may actually help keep cheatgrass in check relative to ungrazed sites, particularly in the aftermath of fire. The Selected Action includes the FEIS clarifications addressing implementation of Forest Plan Amendment 2 to insure that application of proper-use criteria under the Selected Action is consistent with Amendment 2. One DEIS commenter expressed concern that DEIS use-criteria were displayed as end-of-season criteria and that Amendment 2 envisioned criteria that were a cause for action at any time of the year. I asked the ID Team to look at the potential for regrowth of grazed vegetation in the Santa Rosa Mountains. After reviewing precipitation patterns and regrowth potential during the permitted grazing periods, the ID Team concluded that regrowth of grazed vegetation would be minimal on a typical year. On this basis, the FEIS was clarified, proposing that proper-use criteria would apply at any time during the grazing season (within season triggers), as well as the end-of-season. Reports of potential violations will be investigated and as appropriate, acted on by the Forest Service. Action by the Forest Service could include various administrative remedies to ensure that end-of-season criteria are met. My Selected Action modifies the Proposed Action to include a maximum 10 percent streambank disturbance criterion for streams inhabited by Lahontan cutthroat trout. Bank disturbance would be measured by Multiple Indicators Methods protocol contained in Interagency Technical Bulletin This provision was provided by US Fish and Wildlife Service as a term and condition in their Biological Opinion on this project, and is similar to a provision provided for the Martin Basin Project decision in The Selected Action provided by this ROD is also consistent with all other terms and conditions in the Biological Opinion. The effects of the streambank disturbance modification are well within the threshold of effects to fisheries and socio-economic values described in the FEIS. Page 14 of 24

17 X. RATIONALE FOR DECISION In selecting a course of action for the Martin Basin Rangeland Project, I have determined that my decision is consistent with all laws, regulations, and agency policy. I have considered the potential cumulative effects and reasonably foreseeable activities. I believe my decision provides the best balance of management activities to respond to the purpose and need, issues, and public comments, while complying with all applicable laws and regulations. My decision seeks to balance interests of the public at large and the permittees while providing processes to maintain or improve ecological conditions. These interests include managing rangeland vegetation to provide long-term sustainable conditions, while providing some economic opportunities to local economies. While meeting these interests, the decision provides methods for managing to achieve diverse and healthy ecosystems, meeting threatened and sensitive plant and animal habitat needs, and improving water quality effects to streams, riparian areas, and wetlands. My criteria for making a decision on this project were based on: Achievement of the project s Purpose and Need; Relationship to environmental and social issues and public comments received. Meeting the Purpose and Need Section VIII in this ROD (Issues Raised in Public Comment: Economic Considerations) discusses in detail the derivation and limits of our statement of Purpose and Need. I believe the Selected Action best meets the dual elements of the Purpose and Need for action. As discussed below, the Selected Action better meets the resource sustainability objectives provided in the Purpose and Need statement than does Alternative 1 (current grazing). The environmental issues associated with this project are discussed in greater detail in the following section and the three alternatives are compared on these issues. Alternative 3, the No-Grazing Alternative, does not meet one of the elements of the Purpose and Need statement: it does not provide economic value to the permittees. Opponents of Forest Service grazing programs may object to this rationale for rejecting Alternative 3 as a type of circular reasoning. We may be accused of developing selection criteria that includes a provision that only grazing alternatives can meet, and then rejecting the No Grazing Alternative on this basis. This process, however, reflects a fundamental reality of our decision process. The basic decision of whether livestock grazing is a permitted activity has already been addressed in general by legislative action and on this National Forest by the Humboldt National Forest Plan. As we note in the in the Proposed Action section of Chapter 1 of the FEIS, we must address two fundamental questions: Is the activity allowed by Congress in the laws that govern the National Forest System? What condition must we impose to govern this activity? In reference to the first question, Congress has allowed livestock grazing as an appropriate use of NFS lands (when in balance with other multiple uses). We have reviewed the permissive Page 15 of 24

18 direction in the FEIS. Congress also involves itself on a regular basis in our grazing program as, for example, in our annual agency budget appropriation legislation and occasional committee instructions accompanying such legislation. That Congress is aware of the economic ramifications of livestock grazing is evidenced in its active involvement in establishing grazing fees. Congress also provides specific protection for livestock grazing in some legislative actions. For example, the legislation designating the Santa Rosa Paradise Peak Wilderness (which lies within the Martin Basin Rangeland Project area), contains specific language authorizing continued livestock grazing. I also find significant evidence that Congress expects us to ensure that these programs protect important resources such as clean water, endangered species, wildlife habitat, and cultural resources. Congress may not view livestock grazing as a means to these ends, but grazing must be managed with these outcomes in mind. Because of the complexity of these multiple objectives, Congress has given the Forest Service considerable discretion to implement its direction. Our Forest Plan is a second source of decisions on livestock grazing. The Humboldt National Forest Plan was developed under the provisions of the National Forest Management Act. The Humboldt National Forest Plan clearly envisions livestock grazing and provides goals for this program. As discussed elsewhere in this ROD, the Forest Plan also assigns significant responsibilities to project ID Teams to design the criteria under which grazing will occur. The ID Team has done so, and displayed the effects of grazing managed under these conditions. In designing these conditions and criteria, a key consideration is the second element of the Purpose and Need: to sustain the health of the lands and protect essential ecosystem functions. Some will question whether either of the action alternatives can meet this goal. This question is explored in the following section relative to the key natural resource issues identified in designing and preparing this EIS. Comparison of Alternatives on Issues As outlined in Section V of this ROD, the ID Team identified significant issues relative to grazing in the Martin Basin Project area. This section summarizes my key considerations relative to these resource issues and my decision to select a course of action based on Alternative 2 (Proposed Action). Water Quality With respect to State water quality standards, the project area has relatively good water quality. Despite the fact that water sampling generally focused on areas of presumed problems, most measurements in the project area were in compliance with standards set by the state of Nevada. Limited sampling showed some presence of fecal coliform, but within state limits. Existing fecal coliform levels would likely continue under Alternative 1. Presumably these levels would be reduced somewhat under Alternative 2 (and the Selected Action) and Alternative 3, although Page 16 of 24

19 wildlife would still continue as a source of this contaminant. Sampling of twenty sites also showed turbidity readings in two samples that were slightly above an EPA reference level. Turbidity, an indicator of sediment levels in water, can be increased by livestock use near streams. Alternative 2 provides greater controls over cattle use in riparian zones than does Alternative 1, and thus would reduce stream bank disturbance and associated stream sediment. The Selected Action modifies Alternative 2 by adding a criterion that limits stream bank disturbance to 10 percent in stream reaches that contain Lahontan cutthroat trout. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has provided this term and condition in its Biological Opinion to protect stream integrity and water quality necessary for the threatened species. By eliminating livestock grazing, Alternative 3 would further reduce, although not entirely eliminate, stream bank disturbance. Natural events would continue to create some disturbance. Soil Quality Our monitoring indicates that soils have been impacted by grazing over the past 125 years. It is likely that excessive grazing in the late 19 th and early 20 th century significantly altered the soils of the Santa Rosa Mountains, and they have yet to recover fully. Additional monitoring, performed recently in response to public comments on the DEIS, indicates that microbiotic crusts are likely greatly reduced from levels that existed before livestock were introduced. In samples of wet meadows and dry to moist meadows, virtually every site had at least one soil parameter that was impaired. Of the issues discussed in this section, I believe soil conditions indicate the strongest need for a change in current management. Maintaining soil function is critical to the long term sustainability of these ecosystems. Some amount of soil compaction and plant trampling is an inevitable outcome of grazing by large animals. The more concentrated the use, the greater the compaction, with subsequent impacts to plant rooting depth and the health of the vegetative community. Soils also have recovery mechanisms, including expansion and contraction during freezing and thawing, wetting and drying, and colonization by microbiotic organisms. Based on the FEIS analysis, I believe the Alternative 2 (and the Selected Action) will provide a better balance between disturbance and recovery of soils and faster recovery than Alternative 1. Alternative 3 would likely provide at least initially faster recovery of soils than either of the two action alternatives. Whether lands managed under a no grazing prescription would be subject to greater expansion of cheatgrass with subsequent impacts to soils is subject to continued investigation. Monitoring of grazing exclosures in the project area may help answer this question. Vegetation The impacts of grazing on the vegetative resources of the project area are discussed extensively in the EIS, both in the form of a general scientific review, and in a review of the condition of vegetation on each allotment. A key issue is the level of forage use that desirable plants can tolerate while maintaining health and integrity. It is clear from our review that permitted use must be reduced from the default levels of Forest Plan Amendment 2 for the Martin Basin Page 17 of 24

20 Project area. Some commenters have complained that the proposed reductions in use-levels of Alternative 2 do not sufficiently recognize the improved conditions documented in the EIS (photographic evidence and other sources). The commenters presume that the improvements have resulted from implementation at permitted current management use-levels, and would presumably continue under Alternative 1. I do acknowledge that critical ecosystem components have improved. However, data connecting actual-use and management with trends in vegetative condition is, unfortunately, extremely limited. In many cases, particularly in the uplands (where cattle tend not to linger or concentrate), it is possible and even likely, that long-term use has been less than that permitted, and actually more similar to the use-levels envisioned under Alternative 2 (and the Selected Action). I also recognize the condition of many of the riparian areas was significantly affected by flood events in the 1980s and 1990s. It is obvious that the flood events themselves were not caused by livestock grazing. However, the degree to which past livestock grazing may have affected runoff concentration is not known. Riparian conditions in these areas have recovered significantly under current management. I also acknowledge that other riparian areas and streamside zones need additional recovery. Alternative 2 (and the Selected Action) offer the opportunity for a stronger and more rapid recovery than Alternative 1. Managing grazing to protect riparian and wet meadow vegetation will be our single biggest challenge. It will require close cooperation between the permittee and the Forest. However, I have seen evidence that it will work. Some will argue that it would be easier to improve conditions by excluding grazing. However, I believe that Alternative 3 is unnecessarily restrictive. Grazing and riparian area management can be successfully integrated. Future vegetation management may also be challenged by the impacts of climate change and expansion of non-native species such as cheatgrass. The Alternative 2 (and the Selected Action) requires a monitoring system to discern desirable and undesirable changes in our systems. We may be already seeing the effects. I discussed above the impacts that cheatgrass is having in parts of Tom s Basin; however, the impacts are being felt more widely across the project area. It is absolutely critical that we maintain healthy populations of native plants. I believe this again supports the decision to implement the reduced use-criteria of Alternative 2. As I referenced above (and in the EIS), some research indicates that light to moderate grazing may in fact build resistance to some invasive species. We will need continued monitoring to track these changes in our systems. My biggest concerns are the areas that we have identified as non-functioning. Generally, they are experiencing challenges to their vegetative condition. I have discussed our strategies for these areas. Alternative 2 (and the Selected Action) reduces, but does not completely eliminate grazing in these areas significantly impacted by cheatgrass for the reasons given above. Realistically, the areas impacted by cheatgrass may remain non-functioning, and our best outcome may be to prevent further deterioration. I am more confident that Alternative 2 will restore the functionality of the Siard Creek area. Page 18 of 24

21 Some have argued that livestock grazing inherently disrupts ecosystem function. However, I do not believe that is necessarily the case. Our aspen stands in the project area are generally healthy and expanding, with good reproduction. Mountain mahogany stands appear to be expanding. Sagebrush ecosystems have suffered somewhat from fires on the west side of the district, but are generally fairly healthy otherwise. Forest-wide analysis of vegetative conditions shows that the ecosystem mix of old and young stands in some vegetation types, such as mountain big sagebrush communities, are increasingly out of balance. These vegetation types are also increasingly threatened by expanding pinyonjuniper. None of the three alternatives analyzed in the EIS more than minimally address these concerns. Given the many changes and new threats to these systems, additional interventions will likely be necessary. None of the three alternatives would preclude future action; however future proposals would require additional NEPA analysis under a separate description of purpose and need. Wildlife and Fisheries The health of our wildlife and fish populations is closely tied to the availability of healthy and diverse ecosystems. By prescribing grazing to ensure healthy viable plant populations, Alternative 2 provides the basis for healthy ecosystems that can be shared with wildlife and aquatic species. The perspectives provided in the Vegetation subsection above roll into this discussion because wildlife and fish habitat is so intimately connected to vegetative condition. In addition to designing Alternative 2 to better accommodate our vegetative ecosystems, Alternative 2 also incorporates design features and monitoring criteria specifically directed at wildlife and fish species. Restricting all grazing prior to May 15 in areas that could impact sage grouse leking and nesting activities provides further protection for this species during the peak of these critical activities. Avoiding activities (such as salting, placement of water sources or temporary handling faculties) that concentrate livestock in the vicinity of sage grouse nests or leks, pygmy rabbit burrows, flammulated owl nests, and riparian and aspen vegetation communities offers additional protection. The Selected Action modifies Alternative 2 to limiting stream bank disturbance to 10 percent in stream zones occupied by Lahontan Cutthroat trout (in addition to compliance with the proper use criteria). This additional measure, not itemized for either Alternative 1 or 2, offers additional protection to the threatened species, and satisfies the terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion. Summary The question remains. Can the Selected Alternative meet the ecological imperatives of our Purpose and Need? If the expectation is that we return to the systems as they were in the prelivestock era, then the answer is no, and none of the three alternatives can accomplish that either. Too much has been altered with invasive species, disrupted fire regimes, human interventions, and other factors. We are now in a system of approximations, as we attempt to protect the Page 19 of 24

22 critical functions and emulate what we can of the pre-livestock era. Thoughtful scientists whose work we have reviewed in the EIS reach similar conclusions: Modern deviations from historical conditions can alter ecosystem response to disturbances, thus restoring the historical disturbance regime may not be the appropriate strategy for all ecosystems Objectives for ecosystem management probably need to be focused on specific measurable goals that society has determined are valuable (soil stability, biodiversity, wildlife habitat, forage production, etc.) instead of trying to emulate historical disturbances regimes and conditions. A more mechanistic view of disturbances will become even more critical with the continued global spread of organisms and global climate change. (Davies et al as cited in the FEIS) Certainly our natural resource management strategies should be informed by an understanding of the historical processes that have affected our landscapes. It is also clear that a number of constraints provided by modern society as well as by a changing array of natural forces prevent easy implementation of pre-european disturbance regimes. The situation seems to call for a precautionary approach that considers our desired outcomes in terms of key ecosystem variables. The Selected Action is our best attempt to integrate the ecological and the economic. Saying that, I am very aware of the limitations and fallibility of human endeavors. That we have compiled an FEIS for your consideration is an implicit recognition that despite our best efforts the environmental consequences could be significant. I am not presenting a Finding of No Significant Impact. That measure of certainty has not been met. I am also aware that my best presentations of my rationale and decision-making process will have limited persuasive powers for those with long-held views. The arguments over the place of livestock grazing on NFS lands will continue as they have from the first days of the Forest Reserves. In 1897 John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club and godfather of the environmental movement, irreconcilably severed his relations with Gifford Pinchot, the driving force behind the establishment of the US Forest Service. The point of conflict was Pinchot s support for sheep grazing on what would become National Forests. My best hope for the future is that our dialogues can be civil. XI. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS National Forest Management Act: This decision is consistent with Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Endangered Species Act: The Forest consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Forest submitted a Biological Assessment dated September 8, 2009, requesting formal consultation regarding these actions. The USFWS responded in a Biological Opinion dated October 30, 2009, that concluded formal consultation for these actions. With the actions to be undertaken, including conditions and mitigation measures as described herein, I find that the legal requirements of the ESA have been satisfied. Page 20 of 24

23 Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898): As documented in Chapter 3-Other Required Disclosures in the Final EIS, my decision will have no disproportionate effects on minority populations or low-income populations. National Historic Preservation Act: The Forest has complied with the 1995 Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office regarding the effects of livestock management on historical properties. Continued adherence to this MOU satisfies the agency requires under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Clean Water Act: Based on discussions in chapters 3 and 4 of the FEIS and the project record concerning hydrology, this decision is consistent with the Clean Water Act and amendments. No permits are required for implementation of the decision. Clean Air Act: This decision is in compliance with the Clean Air Act, which defines the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for various sources of pollutants that must be met to protect human health and welfare, including visibility. Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order: This decision is in compliance with the act, subsequent Executive Order 13186, and memorandum of understanding between the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service and USDA Forest Service, which provides for the protection of migratory birds. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: Within the project area, the East Fork of the Quinn River has been found to be eligible for further consideration under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Additional studies must be conducted before the river might be recommended to Congress for actual designation. Until these studies are completed the Outstandingly Remarkable Values must be protected. This decision will not affect the potential eligibility, classification, listing, or Outstandingly Remarkable Values under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Executive Order of May 1977 (Wetlands): This order requires the Forest Service to take action to minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. In compliance with this order, Forest Service direction requires that an analysis be completed to determine whether adverse impacts would result. The FEIS and the project record confirm that the decision complies with EO by maintaining and restoring riparian conditions. Executive Order of May 1977 (Floodplains): This order requires the Forest Service to provide leadership and to take action to (1) minimize adverse impacts associated with occupancy and modification of floodplains and reduce risks of flood loss; (2) minimize impacts of floods on human safety, health, and welfare; and (3) restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by flood plains. The FEIS and project record confirm that the decision complies with EO by maintaining floodplain integrity. Page 21 of 24

24 XII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW (APPEAL) OPPORTUNITIES This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 215. Appeals must meet the content requirements of 36 CFR Only individuals or organizations who submitted comments or otherwise expressed interest in the project during the comment period may appeal. Appeals must be postmarked or received by the Appeal Deciding Officer within 45 days of the publication of this notice in Elko Daily Free Press, Elko, Nevada. This date is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal. Timeframe information from other sources should not be relied on. The Appeal Deciding Officer is the Regional Forester. Appeals must be sent to: Appeal Deciding Officer, Intermountain Region, USFS, th Street, Ogden, Utah, Appeal can be hand-delivered to this address during regular business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Fax: , or ed appeals must be submitted in rich text (rtf) or Word (doc) and must include the project name in the subject line. An automated response will confirm your electronic appeal has been received. The appeal must meet the content requirements of 36 CFR It is the appellant's responsibility to provide sufficient project- or activity-specific evidence and rationale, focusing on the decision, to show why my decision should be reversed. At a minimum, an appeal must include the following: Appellant s name and address, with a telephone number, if available; Signature, or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for electronic mail may be filed with the appeal); When multiple names are listed on an appeal, identification of the lead appellant and verification of the identity of the lead appellant upon request; The name of the project or activity for which the decision was made, the name and title of the Responsible Official, and the date of the decision; The regulation under which the appeal is being filed, when there is an option to appeal under either 36 CFR 215 or 36 CFR 251, subpart C; Any specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks and rationale for those changes; Any portion(s) of the decision with which the appellant disagrees, and explanation for the disagreement; Why the appellant believes the Responsible Official s decision failed to consider the comments; and How the appellant believes the decision specifically violates law, regulation, or policy. Page 22 of 24

25