RECORD OF DECISION BATTLE PARK C&H ALLOTMENTS FOR LIVESTOCK GRAZING ON THE AND MISTY MOON S&G. United States Department of Agriculture.

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region Bighorn National Forest RECORD OF DECISION FOR LIVESTOCK GRAZING ON THE BATTLE PARK C&H AND MISTY MOON S&G ALLOTMENTS September 2008

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, DC , or call (800) (voice) or (202) (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. To file a complaint of discrimination, write: USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326, W. Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC , or call (202) (voice and TDD). The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

3 Record of Decision for Livestock Grazing on the Battle Park C&H and Misty Moon S&G Allotments USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region Powder River Ranger District, Bighorn National Forest Located within Big Horn County, Wyoming Lead agency Responsible official For information, contact USDA Forest Service Mark Booth District Ranger, Powder River Ranger District Bighorn National Forest 1415 Fort St., Buffalo, WY Bernie Bornong, Project Leader Bighorn National Forest 2013 Eastside Second St., Sheridan, WY

4 Table of Contents Preface to the Record of Decision...1 Summary of Decision...1 Decision and Reasons for the Decision...2 Background...2 My Decision...2 Other Alternatives Considered...5 Alternative 1 No Action, No Livestock Grazing...5 Alternative 2 No Change, Livestock Grazing under Current Allotment Management Plans or Annual Operating Instructions...6 Alternative Considered but not Analyzed in Detail...6 The Environmentally Preferred Alternative...6 Public Involvement...6 Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations...7 Clean Air Act, as amended...7 Clean Water Act...7 National Historic Preservation Act...8 National Forest Management Act...8 Floodplains and Wetlands (Executive Orders and 11990)...8 Endangered Species Act...8 Implementation Date...9 Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities...9 Appeals Filed Under 36 CFR Part Appeals Filed Under 36 CFR Part 251 Subpart C...9 Contact...10

5 Record of Decision for Livestock Grazing on the Battle Park & Misty Moon Allotments Preface to the Record of Decision In April and May of 2008, the term grazing permit holders on Battle Park allotment voluntarily signed permit modifications that reduced the combined number of permitted 1 animal unit months (AUMs) on Battle Park cattle and horse (C&H) allotment from 7,651 to 5,312. The following modifications were implemented on Battle Park allotment: 1. Total number of cattle was reduced from 1,445 to 1, Livestock class for 100 cattle was changed from mature to yearling. 3. Season of use was shortened from June 26 October 25 to July 1 to October 12. This represents a total reduction of about 31% of permitted AUMs, which should provide the permittees with greater management flexibility, certainty in terms of numbers and season, while at the same time being able to consistently meet annual utilization guidelines and maintain or achieve desired conditions. This permit modification is not a part of this decision, and the effects analysis displayed in chapter 3 of the FEIS is still valid. The effects analyses disclosed in chapter 3 assume that management actions will be taken to insure that long-term desired conditions and annual utilization guidelines will be met. Those management actions include improvements such as fences or water developments (FEIS tables 2-4 and 2-4a), sagebrush treatments, and moving cattle out of a pasture, or off of the forest, as utilization guidelines are met (FEIS page 2-16). Monitoring protocols to insure achievement of long-term desired conditions is shown in tables 1-2 and 1-2a in the FEIS. Annual utilization monitoring is specified in the FEIS pages 2-15 to Summary of Decision I have selected Alternative 3 Livestock Grazing using Adaptive Management for implementation on the Battle Park C&H and Misty Moon sheep and goat (S&G) allotments on the Bighorn National Forest. I selected alternative 3 after considering input from various stakeholders, permittees, and the general public, and reviewing the environmental and social effects summarized in the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). This alternative best meets forest plan objectives, protects the natural resources, and provides continued economic benefits to local communities. Achieving the long-term desired conditions established in chapter 1 of the FEIS will assure resource sustainability into the future. The voluntary reduction in AUMs, combined with the improvements authorized in this decision, will help to assure the permittees meet the annual utilization guidelines established in the FEIS and the 2005 Bighorn National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (2005 Forest Plan), while providing more stable livestock numbers and seasons of use. The actions and monitoring specified in this decision will assure protection of heritage resources. 1 The term permitted AUMs is used to describe AUMs shown on part 1 of term grazing permits. 1

6 Bighorn National Forest Powder River Ranger District Decision and Reasons for the Decision Background The 2005 Forest Plan includes an objective and strategy (livestock grazing strategy 1) that livestock grazing, performed in a sustainable manner, would occur on the Bighorn National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2005c, page 1-8). The Forest Service proposes to continue to authorize livestock grazing in the Battle Park C&H and Misty Moon S&G allotments on the Bighorn National Forest in a manner that assures resource conditions are meeting or moving toward forest plan objectives and desired on-the-ground conditions. This record of decision (ROD) and the associated FEIS are the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) disclosure documents that record the analysis conducted and decision made in continuing to provide for sustainable livestock grazing on the Battle Park and Misty Moon allotments. Livestock grazing is currently occurring on the Battle Park allotment under the existing allotment management plan (AMP) and through direction provided in the annual operating instructions (AOIs). The Misty Moon allotment is currently vacant; it has an AMP from This analysis and decision reviewed existing management strategies and updated them to implement forest plan direction and comply with section 504 of Public Law (Rescissions Act, signed 7/27/95). My Decision After careful review of all the alternatives, I have decided to implement Alternative 3 Livestock Grazing using Adaptive Management. Adaptive management focuses on the end results for the resource, as opposed to selecting one specific course of action that will not be deviated from over time. The selected alternative sets forth specific long-term desired conditions and short-term annual utilization guidelines. The variety of specific management actions (e.g., fence construction, water development, and sagebrush burning) and livestock management options (e.g., herding, distribution tools such as salting, and varying time of use) provide the flexibility necessary to meet the annual guidelines and long-term desired conditions. The selected alternative will be incorporated into AMPs for each allotment, scheduled to take affect during the 2009 livestock grazing season. Grazing permits, and their associated AMPs and AOIs, will be issued or re-issued as implementing actions of the decision. The decision is expected to remain in effect until new information or changed conditions warrant a new analysis of the allotments. The selected alternative includes numerous design criteria intended to maintain or enhance watershed, vegetation, and wildlife conditions. It also includes long-term monitoring requirements (FEIS tables 1-2 and 1-2a) designed to measure the effectiveness of the actions on achieving or moving toward the desired conditions. The project record is located at the Powder River Ranger District office in Buffalo, Wyoming. 2

7 Record of Decision for Livestock Grazing on the Battle Park & Misty Moon Allotments I find that alternative 3 best achieves the following purpose and need statements as identified in chapter 1 of the FEIS (page 1-4): 1. The purpose of this project is to determine if livestock grazing will continue to be authorized on the Battle Park allotment, and if it is to continue, how to best maintain or achieve desired conditions and meet forest plan objectives. 2. The purpose of this project is to determine if the currently vacant Misty Moon allotment should be restocked, and if it is restocked, how to best maintain or achieve desired conditions and meet forest plan objectives. 3. An additional purpose of this project is to maintain or move toward desired conditions for sagebrush/grassland communities; specifically, to maintain a mosaic of vegetation composition and structure that emulates, or moves toward, natural processes. The need to provide a mosaic of sagebrush cover densities has been identified in the project area. I find that livestock grazing is an appropriate use of the Battle Park allotment. I have reviewed the FEIS and find that all laws, regulations, policy, and forest plan direction can be achieved using the management strategies shown in chapters 1 and 2. Using the adaptive strategy of annual and long-term adjustments in stocking rates, numbers, and season allows us to achieve the long-term desired conditions, meet annual utilization guidelines, and meet the forest plan objective and strategy to continue sustainable livestock grazing (USDA Forest Service 2005c, page 1-8). The second part of this purpose statement utilizing adaptive management strategies to maintain or achieve desired conditions can be achieved with the management tools identified in the FEIS. These tools allow us the necessary flexibility to achieve the desired conditions through the use of the following: Structural range improvements (FEIS tables 2-4, 2-4a). Treatment of sagebrush to increase forage availability for cattle and wildlife. Based on decades of past monitoring experience (documented in the district allotment files), I find the actions specified in this decision, combined with the recent permit modification reducing stocking rates, will allow the Forest Service and permittees to work together to insure that desired conditions and forest plan objectives will be met. I recognize the importance of livestock grazing to the custom and culture of north-central Wyoming. Forest plan meetings, personal conversations, and several decades living in the shadow of the Big Horn Mountains has provided me with ample evidence of how ranchers and the livestock grazing industry are interwoven into the cultural fabric of this area. Recognition of this led to the development of forest plan livestock grazing strategy 1 (USDA Forest Service 2005c, page 1-8). I find that alternative 3 best meets the dual criterion in that objective; it best provides for continued levels of livestock grazing and ensures that livestock grazing is sustainable from both economic and natural resource perspectives. 3

8 Bighorn National Forest Powder River Ranger District I am closing the upper portion of the Misty Moon allotment to commercial livestock grazing and incorporating the lower portion into the Battle Park allotment. I made this decision because of the low likelihood of this small upper portion of an allotment becoming economically viable for a band of sheep, combined with the fact that the area in question is one of the most heavily used, and therefore impacted, by wilderness visitors. The lower portion of the Misty Moon allotment has been added into the Battle Park allotment. I will primarily use prescribed burning, with some mowing and chemical treatments, to create a mosaic of sagebrush composition and structure that emulates or moves toward natural processes. Using the design criteria and treatment methods discussed in FEIS chapter 2 (page 2-4 through 2-6) will provide the means to achieve a mosaic of sagebrush across the project area landscape while also allowing me to choose the most effective treatment method to achieve that objective. The Connelly guidelines, suggested in forest plan wildlife guideline 10 (USDA Forest Service 2005c, page 1-47) are used in this project. These guidelines suggest a density mosaic that will improve forage conditions, while at the same time providing for sage grouse habitat. Sagebrush treatments were designed in consultation with Wyoming Game and Fish Department personnel, as documented in the project record by several meetings and written input. I find that using prescribed fire to achieve habitat, forage, and ecosystem process objectives is a positive long-term benefit to this ecosystem and the people who use it. Prescribed fire is the preferred tool, as it most closely emulates the natural ecosystem processes. Fire s pattern and effects upon soils, plants, and watersheds is more natural than mechanical or chemical methods; it was the disturbance process that naturally occurred in this landscape (Meyer and Knight 2003; Regan et al. 2003) While fire is the preferred treatment method to achieve a sagebrush mosaic, past experience on allotments just south of the analysis area has shown that other treatment options are sometimes more viable due to economic, management, or logistical reasons. Therefore, the design criteria in chapter 2 include options for mechanical or chemical treatments. On September 15 th, 2008, I met with the interdisciplinary team, and I adjusted the design criterion to allow for more mowing. In July 2008, I observed mowing of sagebrush on private land in the South Paint Rock Creek area, pictures of which are included in the project record. I was very impressed with the management flexibility mowing provides. The timing of its use is much more flexible than burning, there is virtually no ground disturbance, and it is possible to leave islands of sagebrush to provide cover habitat for sagebrush-dependent species. While I still believe fire will be the tool used to treat 90% or more of the sagebrush, I will monitor our ability to achieve the sagebrush cover density goals and use mechanical treatment as a second choice to fire. 4

9 Record of Decision for Livestock Grazing on the Battle Park & Misty Moon Allotments I find alternative 3 incorporates all practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm. This finding is based upon the design criteria elements in chapter 2 of the FEIS and in the monitoring program specified. The design criteria are tiered to forest plan direction and were developed by an interdisciplinary team of resource specialists with several years to several decades of experience in working on the analysis area. This decision incorporates protection for the following: Water and soil resources (chapter 2, design criteria 2, 8, 12, 14, and 15, pages 2-4 to 2-6). Natural plant communities and habitats (chapter 2, design criteria 4, 6, 7, 8, and 12, pages 2-4 and 2-5). Wildlife and wildlife habitats (chapter 2,design criteria 3, 7, and 13, pages 2-4 to 2-6). Recreation and wilderness resources (chapter 2,design criteria 5 and 10, pages 2-4 and 2-5). Heritage resources (chapter 1, table 1-2a, page 1-12 and chapter 2, table 2-4a, page 2-12.). Annual utilization and residual monitoring is specified in chapter 2, and long-term (desired condition) monitoring is identified in tables 1-2 and 1-2a of the FEIS. I find that this monitoring program will inform current and future permit administrators as to whether or not the design criteria are being implemented effectively. If monitoring indicates deficiencies, additional adaptive measures will be applied. The final environmental impact statement (FEIS) presents an objective and well-documented disclosure of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the alternatives. My conclusion is based on a review of the record that shows consideration of the best available science. The aquatics specialist report, the biological evaluations and assessments for wildlife and rare plants contain thorough reviews of relevant scientific information and the acknowledgement of unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk. FEIS Appendix G Response to Comments documents a careful consideration of responsible opposing views. Other Alternatives Considered In addition to the selected alternative, I considered three other alternatives, which are discussed below. A more detailed description of these alternatives can be found in FEIS chapter 2. Alternative 1 No Action, No Livestock Grazing Under this alternative, livestock grazing would be phased out over a time. Livestock improvements, such as fences or water developments not needed for other resources, would be removed. This alternative does not meet the purpose and need identified in chapter 1 of the FEIS. 5

10 Bighorn National Forest Powder River Ranger District Alternative 2 No Change, Livestock Grazing under Current Allotment Management Plans or Annual Operating Instructions Under this alternative, livestock grazing would continue as prescribed under the current AMPs and AOIs as they have been implemented over the past several years. Existing improvements would be maintained as assigned in term grazing permits and would be reconstructed as needed. New improvements not currently authorized in an existing AMP would not be developed without further NEPA analysis and decision. Sagebrush management would not occur. Heritage resource protection on the Battle Park allotment would be through non-structural means, such as moving livestock with riders, shortening the grazing season, or keeping livestock out of existing pastures, unless a future decision to implement a structural improvement solution is made in a separate NEPA analysis and decision process. While this alternative meets the purpose and need identified in chapter 1 of the FEIS, it does not do so as well as alternative 3. Because no new fences or water developments would be constructed, it would take longer to achieve the desired conditions and it is likely that fewer livestock would actually be stocked. Alternative Considered but not Analyzed in Detail One alternative was considered but not analyzed in detail. This alternative would have kept the Misty Moon allotment as a vacant 2 S&G allotment. This was not analyzed because of the lack of demand, at this time, for sheep allotments. In addition, the upper portion of the allotment not added to the Battle Park allotment is in the area of highest user conflict, especially the area near Misty Moon Lake. The Environmentally Preferred Alternative National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations require agencies to specify the alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferable [40 CFR (b)]. I find that alternative 3 is the environmentally preferred alternative, based on the laws and regulations guiding national forest system management and the direction in the 2005 Forest Plan. Although alternative 1 would have fewer environmental effects, it does not achieve a balance between human and resource use as well as alternative 3 does. Alternative 3 best combines the dual forest plan objectives of resource and community sustainability. Public Involvement As described in chapter 1 of the FEIS, the need for this action was first identified nearly 20 years ago. Analysis began in the 1990s but was not completed. The proposed action was originally scoped in August 2004, and the legal notice initiating the NEPA process was published in the Casper Star-Tribune on August 20, A Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) was in the Federal Register on March 26, The notice of availability for the draft EIS (DEIS) was published in the Federal Register on July 20, Tribes were contacted through mailings (included in the project record) and have the opportunity to discuss Bighorn National Forest projects at the annual Medicine Wheel meeting. 2 A vacant allotment is one available to be stocked if someone applies for a permit. 6

11 Record of Decision for Livestock Grazing on the Battle Park & Misty Moon Allotments Multiple meetings and discussions with internal and external groups, agencies, and individuals were held. Agency personnel from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Bureau of Land Management, Washakie County Conservation District, and the National Riparian Service Team were involved, as were permittees and the public. The grazing permittees received all mailings sent to other individuals and organizations and received progress updates during regular permittee meetings. They provided comments to the alternatives in general and input into site-specific development proposals for their respective allotments. A total of five written comments on the DEIS were received. The comments were used to make improvements to the alternatives and to the analysis. Appendix G of the FEIS contains a summary of the response to comments. Public comments, including permittee comments, were instrumental in the development of alternatives, as is evidenced by the specificity of the rangeland vegetation and watershed objectives and design criteria which were incorporated into the alternatives. In addition, an effects analysis was conducted as required under the NEPA. The effects are disclosed in chapter 3 of the FEIS and the project record. Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations I have considered the statutes governing management of the Bighorn National Forest, and I find that this decision represents the appropriate approach to meeting the current statutory duties of the Forest Service. Some of the most important are discussed in this section. Clean Air Act, as amended All lands managed by the forest are currently in attainment with the national ambient air quality standards. Compliance with air quality statutes is directed in the forest plan, chapter 1, air standard 1. As discussed in the air resources section of chapter 3 of the FEIS, the only effect upon air resources under this project is expected to be the prescribed burning. The prescribed burn plans will include smoke management criteria to meet Wyoming air quality standards and regulations. Clean Water Act Alternative 3 is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Clean Water Act. Design criterion 2 (FEIS page 2-4), incorporates state of Wyoming best management practices through implementation of the guidance found in the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook. The 2005 Forest Plan contains direction to ensure all projects comply with the requirements of the Clean Water Act (forest plan, chapter 1, objective 1a and strategies, page 1-2; standards and guidelines, page 1-26). An aquatic ecosystem assessment was completed by Winters and others (Winters 2004) to show the current condition of streams and watersheds on the forest. This information is found in the project record. Based upon the information in chapter 3 of the FEIS, and numerous field reviews, I find that the design criteria in chapter 2 (page 2-4) and the forest plan direction described above will to protect or restore the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of water of the United States in accordance with the Clean Water Act. 7

12 Bighorn National Forest Powder River Ranger District National Historic Preservation Act I find alternative 3 to be consistent with the National Historic Preservation Act. Consultation with the state historic preservation office (SHPO), pursuant to Section 106 of the act, was completed, and resulted in a memorandum of agreement with SHPO. The design criteria shown in table 2-4a of the FEIS, combined with the monitoring specified in table 1-2a, form a strategy that is the basis of the memorandum of agreement. Because of this adaptive plan and SHPO s involvement and review, the implementation of this alternative will result in a final determination of no adverse effect. National Forest Management Act This project is consistent with applicable standards, guidelines, and other direction included in the 2005 Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005c). The project will not cause irreversible resource damage, such as to soil productivity or watershed condition (chapter 3, pages 3-13 to 3-18 and 3-25 to 3-30). (Reference: FSH , Sec ) After reviewing the forest plan biological evaluation (USDA Forest Service 2005c), I find the project is consistent with the requirements of the 2005 Forest Plan for management indicator species (MIS). The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requirement for approving a project decision is to determine that the project will be consistent with the forest plan (16 USC 1604(i)). The scope of analysis for a forest plan s MIS is determined by the forest plan s management direction, specifically its standards and guidelines (chapter 1) and monitoring direction (chapter 4). The 2005 Forest Plan establishes monitoring and evaluation requirements that do not require population monitoring for MIS but rather employ habitat capability relationships (USDA Forest Service 2005c). Floodplains and Wetlands (Executive Orders and 11990) These executive orders require federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, short- and longterm effects resulting from the occupancy and modification of floodplains, and the modification or destruction of wetlands. This decision is consistent with the provision of Executive Order (EO) 11988; it does not authorize the type of occupancy or modification of floodplains envisioned in E.O This decision also complies with EO The design criteria in chapter 2 (page 2-4), most notably the implementation of the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook direction, includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands. Endangered Species Act I have reviewed the biological evaluation and the FEIS wildlife section and find that this decision and analysis complies with the Endangered Species Act. The FEIS includes a finding no effect to the one threatened species analyzed, Canada lynx (chapter3, page 3-83). This analysis was tiered the forest plan biological assessment, forest plan FEIS appendix F (USDA Forest Service 2005a).. 8

13 Record of Decision for Livestock Grazing on the Battle Park & Misty Moon Allotments Implementation Date If no appeals are filed within the 45 calendar-day period, implementation of the decision may occur on, but not before, 5 business days from the close of the appeal filing period [36 CFR Part 215.9(a)]. When appeals are filed, implementation may occur on, but not before, the 15th business day following the date of the last appeal disposition. Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities Appeals Filed Under 36 CFR Part 215 This decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215 (June 4, 2003). The appeal must be filed (regular mail, fax, , hand, messenger service, or express delivery, with the appeal deciding officer at: Appeal Deciding Officer William T. Bass 2013 East Side Second Street Sheridan, Wyoming Fax: appeals-rocky-mountain-bighorn@fs.fed.us Electronic appeals must be submitted in.pdf, rich text format (.rtf), or Word (.doc); include the name of the project being appealed in the subject line. Appellants should normally receive an automated electronic acknowledgement as confirmation of agency receipt of electronic appeals. If the appellant does not receive an automated acknowledgement of receipt, it is the appellant s responsibility to ensure timely receipt by other means. In cases where no identifiable name is attached to an electronic message, a verification of identity will be required. A scanned signature is one way to provide verification. Appeals, including attachments, must be filed within 45 calendar days from the publication date of this notice in the Casper Star Tribune, the newspaper of record. Attachments received after the 45 day appeal period will not be considered. The publication date in the Casper Star Tribune is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal. Those wishing to appeal this decision should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. Appeals Filed Under 36 CFR Part 251 Subpart C This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to Department of Agriculture regulations 36 CFR (2). To appeal this decision under 36 CFR 251, a written notice of appeal, meeting the content requirements at 36 CFR must be postmarked or received within 45 calendar days after the date of notice of decision in this letter. 9

14 Bighorn National Forest Powder River Ranger District However, when the 45-day filing period would end on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday, the filing time is extended to the end of the next federal working day. The notice of appeal must be sent to: USDA Forest Service Bighorn National Forest Appeal Reviewing Officer, ATTN: William T. Bass 2013 Eastside Second St. Sheridan, WY Office business hours for those submitting hand-delivered appeals are 8:00 a.m. through 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Appeals may also be submitted via Fax: or via appeals-rocky-mountain-bighorn@fs.fed.us. Electronic appeals must be submitted.pdf, rich text format (.rtf), or Word (.doc); include the name of the project being appealed in the subject line. A copy of the appeal must simultaneously be sent to the district ranger at: Deciding Officer Powder River District Ranger Bighorn National Forest 1415 Fort Street Buffalo, WY Additionally, if an appeal is filed, an oral presentation concerning the appeal (36 CFR ) and/or stay of implementation (36 CFR ) of the decision may be requested at any time prior to closing the appeal record. Contact For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service appeal process, contact Bernie Bornong; Bighorn National Forest; 2013 Eastside Second St.; Sheridan, WY; / Mark Booth/ 9/30/2008 Mark Booth, District Ranger Powder River Ranger District Buffalo, WY Date 10